IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

RESERVED ON: 17.09.2025 DELIVERED ON: 25.09.2025

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

WPA 20095 OF 2024

WITH

CAN 1 OF 2025

SMT. DIPALI RANI BISWAS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Appearance:-

Mr. Surya Prasad Chattapadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Arjun Samanta, Adv.

Ms. Trishtrya Mancherji, Adv.

.…………………….. for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Adv.

Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.

….…….… for the BMC.

Mr. Joydip Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Adv.

………….......…………for the State.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the

inaction of the respondent authorities in not carrying out the mutation of the land measuring 0.62 acres situated at Mouza Krishnapur, having J.L No. 17, R.S Khatian No. 1500 and 1503 (modified Khatian No. 1161), C.S Dag No. 6256, R.S Dag No. 4371 under the police station East Salt Lake,

District 24 Pargnas (North), Kolkata-700091 in the name of the Petitioner.

2. The facts as emerged from the present writ petition are as follows:

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that one Smt. Nanibala Dasi and Smt.

Mangaladevi Dasi were the absolute owners of the land in question. They gifted the said land to the Petitioner by way of a registered Gift Deed bearing No. 4519 of 1971, executed on 20.09.1971 before the Sub- Registrar, Cossipore, Dum Dum. By virtue of the said registered deed of gift, the Petitioner became the absolute owner of the said premises and has been in continuous, uninterrupted, and actual physical possession thereof from the date of execution till date, without any encumbrance whatsoever.

4. The Petitioner, thereafter, applied for mutation of the said property in her name by filing an application dated 26.02.2010. However, the Respondent refused to effect such mutation on the basis of an Office Memorandum dated 28.06.2010, wherein it was alleged that the land in question had been acquired by the State authorities.

5. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred W.P.A. No. 713 (W) of

2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by order dated 14.02.2011, holding inter alia that, in terms of Memo dated 19.03.2010 and Memo dated 17.01.2011 issued by Respondent No. 7, there was no proposal for acquisition of the land in question. Accordingly, no further order was required to be passed.

6. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted all relevant documents and again sought mutation of the property in her name. The Respondent Municipal Corporation, however, directed the Petitioner to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs. The Petitioner submitted multiple representations, including those dated 02.11.2011 and 22.11.2011, requesting issuance of such NOC, but no response was ever received.

7. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner instituted the second round of litigation by filing W.P. No. 21066 (W) of 2011 seeking issuance of a mutation certificate. This Hon’ble Court, by order dated 13.01.2012, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Respondent Municipal Corporation to dispose of the Petitioner’s application dated 26.02.2010 within four weeks from the date of communication of the said order. Despite such direction, the Respondent Corporation failed to effect the mutation, citing absence of an NOC from the Department of Urban Development.

8. The Petitioner thereafter approached various departments through applications under the Right to Information Act. By reply dated 23.02.2018, the Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Department categorically clarified that issuance of a mutation certificate falls exclusively within the domain of the concerned Municipality. Further, by RTI reply dated 16.04.2018, the Land Acquisition Department, North 24 Parganas, confirmed that the land in question had never been acquired by the Government at any point of time.

9. Despite such cle