07.01.2026

SL. No.34 Court No.2

SKG

Calcutta High Court

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

W.P.A. No. 2749 of 2025

Savita Singh & Anr.

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Arnab Sengupta,

Mr. Riju Dey,

Mr. Nirnay Datta,

Mr. Rajat Ch. Singha, …for the Petitioners. Mr. Deborshi Dhar,

….for the respondent no.6

Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Sourav Sarkar,

…for the State

Mr. Sudipta Kanta Bhowmik,

Mr. Anirban Banerjee,

…for WBSEDCL

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by inaction on the part

of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited in supplying electricity to the flat

purchased by the petitioners.

2. By the deed of conveyance dated June 24, 2020, the

premises was purchased by the petitioners free from all encumbrances. Smt. Kalpana Das, the erstwhile owner was also a signatory to the said deed of conveyance. The WBSEDCL refused to grant connection on the ground that, there were outstanding dues against the said premises in the name of Kalpana Das. Kalpana Das, the respondent

no.5, does not appear before the court despite service.

3. The respondent no.6 is the developer who entered into the development agreement on January 24, 2013 with Kalpana Das. It appears from the development agreement that the respondent no. 6 was to construct a P+3 storied building upon obtaining sanction from Siliguri Municipal Corporation. Article II of the development agreement provides that the land owner/Kalpana Das, shall vacate the schedule land and hand over the same in a vacant condition to the builder, free from all encumbrances and hindrances. The vacant land was to be handed over within a month from execution of the development agreement. A general power of attorney was issued, authorizing the respondent no.6 to do all acts and deeds in relation to the construction of the proposed building on the schedule property and to enter into an agreement with intending buyers/3^rd parties in respect of the other flats to be constructed, apart from the flats and parking area which were allotted to the first party/Kalpana Das as the owners allocation. Kalpana Das was also entitled to some consideration, approximately amounting to Rs.7,50,000/-. Article III(6) provides that the promoter would be entitled to get temporary electric connection from the WBSEDCL and other facilities during the construction period. Kalpana Das was required to execute the necessary papers to that effect. The existing connection would be used by the builder and it would have to pay the bills from the date of the owner vacating the premises. The maintenance cost, electricity bills for running the lift, common water pump and other common electrical consumption shall be borne by the society to be formed by the flat owners and by Kalpana Das, proportionately on the basis of the units in the building allotted to the buyers. Kalpana Das was to get three flats distributed in three floors, measuring about 700 sq.ft., open parking space measuring about 125 sq.ft. (each) in the ground floor and consideration amount of Rs.7,50,000/-.

4. Thus, from the terms and conditions of the said development agreement, it appears that the owner undertook to deliver vacant possession of the land to the developer, free from all encumbrances. The outstanding electricity bill against the said premises was Kalpana’s liability. Kalpana was a party to the agreement and such liability does not find any mention in the development agreement. The buyers had purchased the flat, upon the builder having completed the building. Kalpana Das was the vendor and the developer was the confirming party, in the deed of conveyance. The deed provides that the purchasers will hold the unit as owners thereof, with permanent heritable and transferable right, title and interest therein under the terms and conditions agreed to by the vendor, purchaser and the developer. They will hold the same free from all encumbrances and charges whatsoever. Similar clauses are found throughout the deed of conveyance. The dee