Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya &

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya FMA No. 1274 of 2025 Shiuli Pal -vs-

The State of West Bengal and others For the appellant : Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay, Mr. Tirthankar Basu, Ms. Suman Biswas, Advs.

For the State-respondents : Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Jr. Govt. Adv., Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal, Adv. Heard on : April 2, 2026. Judgment on : April 2, 2026.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The present challenge has been preferred by the appellant against an order of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. In the said writ petition, the appellant complained that despite Probate having been obtained by the appellant in respect of a Will executed by the original owner, one Ramesh Chandra Deb, who was the allottee in respect of the subject plot, the application for mutation made by the appellant in terms of the bequest was not allowed by the Estate Manager, Development and Planning Department, Government of West Bengal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that by dint of grant of Probate, the appellant stepped into the shoes of the original allottee/testator and as such is entitled to such mutation.

4. By taking the Court through the provisions of the purported lease agreement, learned counsel points out that in terms of the same, the original allottee/testator was merely to deposit 10% of the premium or salami as mentioned in the earlier clauses of the said agreement. Should such offer be accepted, the respondent authorities were only to appropriate the said sum towards payment of the premium or salami aforesaid.

5. Thus, even if the said document is construed to be an offer of lease given by the original allottee/testator, by dint of acceptance of the subsequent payments made in terms thereof, there was acceptance of the said offer on behalf of the respondent authorities.

6. Learned counsel also takes us through several annexures, which were placed before the writ court, evidencing the payment of such premium/salami.

7. Learned counsel cites a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Chhabi Chowdhury Vs. The State of West Bengal and others reported at (2024) 1 WBLR(Cal) 126 where under similar circumstances, the coordinate Bench had directed mutation to be effected in the name of the legatee of the Will of the original allottee/testator.

8. A copy of the Special Leave Petition filed against such judgment is also handed over in Court, from where it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the said decision of the coordinate Bench.

9. Learned counsel further points out that vide letter dated November 26, 2013, the Estate Manager, Kalyani Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal had written to the original allottee/testator placing reliance upon Clause – 9(c) of the lease agreement. Thus, it is contended that even the respondents proceeded on the premise that the document-in-question was a lease deed.

10. However, the learned Single Judge turned down the prayer made in the writ petition on the sole premise that there was no transfer of title as envisaged in Sections 105 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( in short “the 1882 Act”) in the absence of a registered lease deed having been formally executed.

11. It is contended that such premise of the impugned judgment was erroneous inasmuch as the allotment by way of lease in favour of the original allottee/testator, in whose shoes the appellant has stepped in by virtue of the probated Will, was acceded to by the respondents themselves by their conduct.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent authorities submits that no formal registered deed of lease was ever entered into between the respondents and the original allottee/testator.

13. It is argued that in the absence of such deed, the original allottee/testator could not cl