The court mandates timely action by authorities on pending representations, emphasizing procedural fairness and the necessity of hearings for all affected parties.

1. The present writ petition has been filed alleging inaction on the part of the concerned respondent in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 19th December 2019 (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition) and in failing to take a decision thereon.

2. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that a leasehold right in respect of a plot of land was granted in favour of one Dr. Dinanath Banerjee (since deceased), the father of the present petitioner. Dr. Banerjee constructed a three-storied building on the said land after obtaining necessary sanction and/or permission from the competent authority. He passed away on 2nd November, 1989, leaving behind his wife, two sons, and one daughter. Following his demise, the legal heirs took steps to have their names mutated, and the mutation was accordingly effected.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that Smt. Anjali Banerjee, wife of the original lessee, had transferred her 1/4th share by way of a registered deed of gift dated 07.12.2017 in favour of one Debarshi Saha, based on an order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Land Manager permitting such transfer. According to the petitioner, this permission was granted in contravention of Clause 8 of the Deed of Lease. The petitioner submitted a representation requesting the Land Manager to cancel the said permission; however, despite receipt of the representation, no action has been taken nor any decision made. This continued inaction on the part of the concerned Land Manager has prompted the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Adak, learned Advocate representing the State, submits that if the issue is remitted to the concerned authority, i.e., the Land Manager, with a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation and take a decision thereon, the State will not stand in the way.

5. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate representing the private respondents, vehemently disputes and denies the contentions advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner. However, he submits that if the issue is relegated to the concerned authority, a direction should be given to ensure that, before taking any decision, the private respondents are afforded an opportunity of hearing.

6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record.

7. Undoubtedly, the leasehold right in respect of the plot of land was granted in favour of one Dr. Dinanath Banerjee. Upon the demise of Dr. Banerjee, the said right was inherited by his legal heirs, namely Anjali Banerjee, Dabananda Banerjee, Bivekananda Banerjee, and Mrs. Rupashree Saha (Banerjee). Subsequently, based on an application submitted by the legal heirs of the original lessee, a mutation order was passed, and the plot of land was mutated in their names.

8. The record reveals that Smt. Anjali Banerjee, by executing a deed of gift, transferred her 1/4th share in favour of one Debarshi Saha. As noted previously, the transfer was effected based on the permission granted to Smt. Banerjee by the Land Manager vide order dated 10th November, 2017. According to the petitioner, this order was passed in violation of Clause 8 of the Lease Deed.

9. Admittedly, despite receipt of the representation dated 19.12.2019 from the petitioner, no steps have been taken in this regard. The authority cannot remain inactive or sit over the matter for an indefinite period.

10. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon respondent no. 2, the Land Manager, to consider the representation, address the issues raised therein, and take a decision ther