Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

FMA 728 of 2021

Dr. Samar Sengupta

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

For the appellant : Mr. Swarup Banerjee,

Mr. Arindam Chatterjee,

Mr. Subham Biswas

For the State : Mr. Suddhadev Adak,

Ms. Richa Pramanik

Heard on : 04.12.2025 & 11.12.2025

Judgment on : 11.12.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by

a learned Single Judge of this Court on September 25, 2020 in WP No.

6832 (W) of 2008.

2. The appellant, as the writ petitioner, sought a direction on the

respondent authorities for execution of a registered deed of lease in his favour on the strength of an offer letter issued by the respondent authorities for allotment of a plot in Bidhannagar, on the North

Eastern fringes of Kolkata, in the name of the appellant, which was accepted by the writ petitioner by payment of due salami.

3. Even after the said process of allotment having reached an advanced stage, the same was refused by an order dated February 26, 2007 on the ground that the writ petitioner was a minor at the time of entering into the transaction, which was suppressed by the writ petitioner and, as such, the transaction was void ab initio and the allotment offer was liable to be cancelled as there was gross misrepresentation of fact.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was no suppression at all, since the appellant all along disclosed his age and the fact that he was a minor. In particular, reliance is placed by the appellant on his request for allotment dated July 24, 1981, where the date of birth of the appellant was categorically disclosed to be November 21, 1968.

5. Even subsequently, a letter was written by the appellant to the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, MD Department, where it was categorically mentioned that the appellant was a minor.

6. It is argued that despite such clear disclosure, the respondent authorities, with their eyes wide open, proceeded in pursuance of the offer letter and demanded salami to be deposited by the appellant.

7. By a subsequent letter of offer of allotment dated October 30, 1981, it was inter alia given out to the appellant that after the salami in full/part was deposited, an agreement with the Government had to be entered into, accepting all the terms and conditions of the lease in the form to be sent to the appellant separately. It was further mentioned that after full payment of all dues, the appellant had to get the lease deed drawn up, executed and registered.

8. Thus, it is argued that the allegation of suppression or misrepresentation was incorrect and the transaction could not be called off at the behest of the respondents on such ground. It is argued that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration such aspect of the matter.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant next argues that although Section

11 of the Contract Act creates a bar to a minor entering into a contract, there is no legal bar in a transfer being effected in favour of a minor. In support of such contention, learned counsel cites Neelam Gupta vs. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, reported at AIR OnLine 2024 SC

678.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the offer of allotment given to the appellant is not a contract but an agreement to enter into a subsequent lease agreement and, as such, cannot be said to have been vitiated by operation of Section 11 of the Contract Act.

11. Thirdly, it is argued that the respondent authorities are bound by promissory estoppel, even if not by contract, from resiling from the offer letter initially issued to the appellant, since the appellant acted on the basis of such representation by paying the salami in different tranches and interest for delayed payment of the balance salami.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant cites Khan Gul and anothe