ASR 7.

Ct. no. 24. 23.05.2025 WPA 5500 of 2018 Arnabjeet Banerjee & Anr.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Subham Gupta Mr. Arup Kumar Singh Mr. Rajsekhar Bal Bakshi ……..For the Petitioners State of West Bengal executed a lease deed in favour of one Sri Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, son of Late Debendra Nath Bandyopadhyay on the 13^th Day of January , 1999 in respect of a plot of land measuring 4.3447 cottahs more or less being plot no. 259 in Block EC, Sector-I of Bidhannagar (North), Salt Lake. The lessee Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay constructed a double storied building being G+1 over the leasehold property. Lessee also mutated his name in the assessment record of the Bidhannagar Municipality and were regularly paying municipal taxes in his name.

Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay was unmarried and had no legal heirs or successor. Accordingly, he executed his last will and testament on 30.08.2006 in favour of the petitioners who are the nephew and niece in relation to the original lessee. Will was registered in the office of the Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta vide Registry No. 914 of 2006 duly entered in Book No. III, Volume No. 17, Pages 13 to 16 being No. 914 of 2006. By the said will the lessee has appointed father of the petitions namely Kamal Kumar Banerjee being executor of the said will. Lessee has expired on 30th May, 2015. Thereafter the executor of the will has applied for probate of the will before this court. The will was duly probated by this court vide order dated 22^nd December, 2016 being PLA no. 228 of 2016. After the probate being granted the present petitioner being the beneficiaries over the lease hold right of Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay has made an application before the concerned authority for mutation to respondent no. 4 being Land Manager, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal by providing all document as required to that effect.

The petitioner also paid an amount of Rs.

10,000/- to the respondent no. 4 for the purpose of mutation.

After receiving those documents respondent no.

4 issued the impugned memo dated 5^th March, 2018 and communicated the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 21,72,350/- (Rupees Twenty one lack seventy two thousand three hundred fifty) through Government receipt portal for the purpose of mutation in respect of aforesaid plot of land within 30 days.

It has been mentioned in the said memo that the said memo was issued on basis of notification of the concerned department dated 22^nd June, 2022 issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the concerned respondent authority claimed a huge amount of money for mutating the names of the petitioners.

Hence, the writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are the beneficiaries by virtue of registered deed of will which was properly probated before this court and probate has been duly granted. Necessary formalities has been conducted before the concerned authority for the purpose of mutated the names of the petitioners in the mutation record. He further submits that this issue has time and again appeared before this court as well as before Supreme court in several writ petitions, wherein this court has time and again issued specific direction for quashing the impugned memo dated 22^nd June, 2012. It has been further directed by this court the concerned cannot claim such huge amount of money for the purpose of mutation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued the memo dated 22^nd June, 2012 is not applicable in this case. Lessee Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay was unmarried. The present petitioner are not the strangers but they are the close relatives i.e., nephew and niece for erstwhile lessee. Thus the will cannot be said to be „to a stranger‟.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the direction of this court in earlier occasion.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide its order dated 29.11.2019 in W.P. no. 2