6.11.2025 SB Ct no. 3 Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRR 269 of 2025 With CRAN 1 of 2025 Somdev Mukherjee Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Nigam Ashis Chakraborty Mr. Agniva Banerjee Mr. Arijit Ghosh …for the Petitioner Mr. Somnath Ghosal Mr. Debjit Kundu …for the O.P no. 2 Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Abhijit Sarkar …for the State The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of the proceeding in connection with Siliguri Police Station case no. 96 of 2025, presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Siliguri. In the written complaint dated 15.2.2025 filed by the defacto-complainant, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Siliguri Cinema and Trading Company Private Limited (hereinafter called as “Company”) the allegation levelled against the petitioner inter alia to the effect is that one Swapna Mukherjee, daughter of Durgapada Mukherjee transferred a portion of the property belonging to company in favour of the petitioner in illegal manner by virtue of deed of conveyance dated 20^th December, 2006 knowing fully well that the said land is absolutely owned by the company and it transpires that they have also made several deeds though Swapna Mukherjee did not have the right to purchase or sale of the said land.

Being aggrieved by the instant proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased father of the petitioner namely, Mallar Mukherjee inherited the property as co-owner described in the Schedule-A from the petitioner’s grandfather late Durga Pada Mukherjee. After the death of Rajani Kanta Mukherjee, father of the said Durgapada Mukherjee who is the grandfather of the petitioner gave a lease of a portion of his inherited homestead land with structure to the said company for a period of nine years on 4.6.1947 by entering into an agreement dated 5.6.1947. Subsequently in the year 1953, the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act came into existence and by virtue of such Act of 1953 all the lands beyond the ceiling limit got vested with the State, except the land where the provision of Section 6(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1953 applies. According to petitioner, the present plot of land comes under the said exception clause as it is a homestead land as indicated in the lease deed of 1947 and as such, as per exception laid down in Section 6(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1953, it cannot be vested to the State of West Bengal.

Late Durgapada Mukherjee challenged the aforesaid vesting by filing an appeal but such appeal was subsequently withdrawn due to non-prosecution.

Thereafter, on 4.7.1978, the widow of Durgapada Mukherjee namely, Late Usha Mukherjee executed her last will bequeathing her rights and shares in the entire estate including the schedule property in favour of the mother of the petitioner. The said will was probated after the demise of said Usha Mukherjee in favour of the mother of the petitioner being Misc.(Probate) 60 of 2002 by the then district delegate at Darjeeling on 27.4.2006.

Petitioner’s further contention is that the lease of the property was for a period of nine years and after the death of Rajani Kanta Mukherjee, son of Durgapada Mukherjee inherited the property and after the demise of Durgapada Mukherjee, the father of the petitioner, namely Mallar Mukherjee inherited the same along with other legal heirs. Petitioner has bought 1/5^th share of his aunt in the aforesaid property by virtue of a deed dated 20.12.2006. However, it transpires that the company illegally mutated the name of the property in connivance with the BL& LRO office. In fact, the petitioner never relinquished their right title and interest in the said property non the company has ever got any document from the petitioner or any other legal heirs showing that the legal heirs of Durgapada Mukherjee have relinquished their right title and interest in the property in favour of company.

Petitioner’s further contention is that the petitioner after having knowledge of the inst