S/L 9

13.06.2025 Court. No. 19 Suvayan/

Sourav WPA 22956 of 2023 Rajeswar Prasad & Anr.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay Mr. Tirthankar Basu Mrs. Suman Biswas …for the petitioners.

Mr. Asish Kumar Guha Mr. Benazir Ahmed …for the State.

1. Both the writ petitioners and the respondents/State are represented.

2. The affidavit-in-reply as filed on behalf of the writ petitioners is taken on record.

3. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents more specifically against the respondent no. 2 for cancellation and/or setting aside the memo dated 18.02.2021 whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 2 did not consider the writ petitioners’ application for mutation in respect of plot no. B-14/474 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said plot’

in short) at Kalyani Township.

4. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Annexure-P3 of the instant writ petition at page nos. 28 to 37 being a copy of the registered deed of lease dated 03.06.1999 as has been executed in favour of one Sunil Chandra Sengupta, since deceased (lessee) in respect of the said plot.

Attention of this Court is also drawn to Annexure-P5 at page nos. 41 to 58 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the registered deed of transfer dated 04.09.2003 as has been executed by an between Sri Udatta Sengupta and Smt. Madhuchhanda Kar being the legal heirs of the original lessee Sunil Chandra Sengupta and the writ petitioners whereby and whereunder the said plot of land was transferred to the writ petitioners.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Chattopadhyay that from page nos. 61 and 62 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that after execution and registration of the said deed of transfer dated 04.09.2003 the writ petitioners approached the respondent no. 2/authority for effecting mutation in respect of the said plot, however, by issuing the memo dated 18.02.2021 such application for mutation has been rejected.

6. At this juncture, Mr. Chattopadhyay again took me to page no. 27 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the memo dated 21.09.1982 as issued by the Land and Land Reforms department ULC Branch. It is submitted by Mr. Chattopadhyay that from the said memo dated 21.09.1982 it would reveal that the original lessee was permitted to retain excess vacant land beyond the ceiling area considering that acquisition of excess vacant land would cause undue hardship to the original lessee.

7. At this juncture, Mr. Chattopadhyay draws attention of this Court to page no. 13 of the supplementary affidavit as filed on behalf of the writ petitioners and as affirmed on 27.11.2024. It is submitted by Mr. Chattopadhyay that from page no. 13 of the said supplementary affidavit it would reveal that by virtue of a notification dated 16.12.2011 the State has taken a decision to allow post-facto permission for regularization of transfer of leasehold land in respect of plots in Kalyani Township if otherwise permissible as per existing policy and on deposit of usual transfer fee and in addition a penalty equivalent to 100 percent of usual transfer fees 1/4 of the land value in all cases totaling 1/2 of the land value. It is submitted by Mr. Chattopadhyay that in view of such notification there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondent no. 2 to issue the memo dated 18.02.2021.

8. In course of his submission Mr. Chattopadhyay also draws attention of this Court to the report as submitted on behalf of the respondents/authorities. It is submitted that in such report a contrary stand has been taken on behalf of the respondents/State ignoring the beneficial notification dated 16.12.2011.

9. Per contra, Mr Ahmed, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/State and its functionaries places much reliance upon the report dated 30.11.2023 as submitted by the respondent no. 2/auth