Judgment :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. We find from the application for condonation of delay that in paragraph no. 6 thereof, it has been stated that although the impugned order was communicated to the office of the Land Manager, Bidhannagar on May 5, 2025, but “due to non- placement of papers and documents in time before the concerned higher authority” and for preparing the grounds of appeal, no effective steps could be taken in time for preferring the appeal before this court.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submits that the ground stated in paragraph no. 6 is not a good ground for condonation of delay.

3. We find that some amount of departmental laxity was there, which should not be taken so strictly as to shut out the rights of the appellants to prefer the appeal.

4. However, it is clear from the averment made in paragraph no. 6 of the application that the Land Manager, Bidhannagar, the appellant/petitioner no.2 herein, was fully responsible for the delay occasioned in preferring the appeal.

5. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed on condition that the appellant no. 2 shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents within a fortnight from date from his own pocket.

6. Subject to payment of such cost, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.

7. MAT 1933 of 2025 is taken up for admission hearing accordingly.

8. The short question which has fallen for consideration in this appeal is whether the demand of permission fees from the writ petitioners/present respondents by the appellant authorities for mutation of the writ petitioners' names on the strength of a bequest in their favour of the subject property, situated at Salt Lake (Bidhannagar), in the North Eastern fringes of the city of Kolkata, by the original allottee/lessee by dint of a Will, was valid in the eye of law.

9. When the writ petitioner/present respondents sought to have their names mutated by dint of a Will executed by the original allottee in favour of the writ petitioners, who are strangers to the family of the original allottee, permission charges were claimed by the appellant authorities. It is submitted by the appellants that such demand was made on the strength of a Notification dated August 3, 2022.

10. From the impugned judgment, we do not find any reflection of arguments on the 2022 Notification and/or anything to show that such Notification was placed before the learned Single Judge.

11. However, learned counsel for the appellant authorities submits that the said Notification was a part of the report placed before the learned Single Judge but was not considered.

12. It is submitted that in terms of the said Notification dated August 3, 2022 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, the writ petitioner/respondents were duty-bound to pay additional permission fees, apart from the usual processing fees, being strangers to the family of the original allottee/lessee.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondents places reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated November 13, 2018 in the matter of Rina Dasgupta vs. State of West Bengal and others, in W.P. No.2616(W) of 2018.

14. The learned Single Judge, in paragraph no. 16 thereof, while quashing two Notifications dated June 22, 2012 and September 2, 2013, which were similar to the 2022 Notification now sought to be relied on by the appellants, categorically held that His Lordship did not find that the State of West Bengal has any right, under the lease of deed by which it granted the lease to the original lessee, to restrict the right of bequest by a Will of the leasehold to the extent of the unexpired period of lease to any person, whether by regulating the right on the basis of payment of permission fees or otherwise, whether to a stranger or to anyone who was not covered by the expression “closely related by blood”.

15. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that despite the quashing of the said Notif