Sushanta Kumar Roy & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2336 Cal

26.04.2022
 Item No.11
Court No.6.
    S. De
                                M.A.T.352 of 2016

                               I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2016
                             (Old No. CAN/2495/2016)
                               I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2018
                             (Old No. CAN/3659/2018)

                           Sushanta Kumar Roy & Anr.
                                        Vs
                          The State of West Bengal & Anr.


                    Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay,
                    Mr. Loknath Paul,
                    Mr. Tirthankar Basu,
                                      ...for the appellants.
                    Mr. Subhabrata Datta,
                    Mr. Sanatan Panja,
                                      ...for the State.

                    By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

              connected application are taken up together for

              hearing.

                    In re: I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 3659
                           of 2018)

                    This is an application for condonation of delay of

              three days in filing the appeal. Causes shown being

              sufficient, the delay is condoned.

                    I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 3659 of

              2018) is, accordingly, disposed of.

                    In re: IA No. CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 2495

                           of 2016)

                    One     Smt.      Sunanda   Goswami    (in   short

              'Sunanda') was allotted a plot of land in Kalyani
                                2




measuring about 9 kotthas and 13 chattaks by the

Government in the year 1963. Possession of the plot

was handed over to Sunanda on June 10, 1988. The

lease deed was executed on June 22, 1988, wherein

the Government of West Bengal was shown as the

lessor and Sunanda as the lessee in respect of plot no.

B-1/221(A)     at   Kalyani.         However,    before   such

allotment or making over possession to Sunanda by

the Government, no clearance was obtained under the

Urban Land Ceiling Act.

       After taking possession, Sunanda applied to the

Government for transferring 50% of the lease-hold

land in favour of one Santi Ranjan Bagchi.                Such

permission was granted.            The deed of transfer was

executed. 50% of the lease-hold land was transferred

to Santi Ranjan Bagchi.

       It appears that the remaining 50% of the

lease- hold land, Sunanda transferred to one Sushanta

Kumar    Roy    and    another       who   are   the   present

appellants. When the appellants applied for mutating

their names in the land records, they were told that

the transfer was invalid since the land that Sunanda

had purported to transfer to them stood vested in the

State under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling

Act.

       The present appellants challenged the refusal of

the authority to mutate their names by filing W.P. No.
                             3




33258(W) of 2014 before this Court. A learned Single

Judge by an order dated January 30, 2015 directed

the Estate Manager, Kalyani, to consider the mutation

application of the present petitioners and pass a

reasoned order thereon. Pursuant to such order, the

Estate Manager passed an order dated August 4,

2015, rejecting the present appellants' prayer for

mutation in respect of plot no. B-1/221(A). This order

was challenged by the present appellants before the

learned Single Judge which resulted in the impugned

order being passed.        The learned Single Judge

dismissed the writ petition by observing that the

Estate Manager had passed an order which was

supported by cogent reasons. The writ Court does not

act as an appellate authority.      Only in exceptional

cases where an order is without jurisdiction or passed

in breach of the principles of natural justice or there is

grave procedural irregularity, the writ Court would

interfere.

      We have heard learned counsel for the parties in

this appeal.   It appears that on the day the Estate

Manager passed the order which was challenged

before the learned Single Judge in the present

proceedings, the appellants were not represented

before the Estate Manager.        The Estate Manager

perused the available records of the case and passed

the order.
                                4




        The appellants say that the order of vesting was

challenged by Sunanda by filing W.P. 10487 (W) of

2005. By a judgment and order dated June 23, 2009,

a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the

vesting order.     A copy of the said order has been

handed up. Let the same be kept with the records.

        Learned advocate appearing for the appellants

says that a copy of the said order setting aside the

vesting was available         with the    Estate    Manager.

However, there is no reference to such order in the

Estate Manager's order which is under challenge in

these proceedings.

        We find from copy of a letter dated July 22,

2009,    written   by   the   learned    advocate    for   the

appellants to the Estate Manager, Kalyani, that a copy

of the said order of this Court setting aside the vesting

in question was received by the Estate Manager.

However, it is possible that when the order of the

Estate Manager came to be passed on August 4, 2015,

copy of the said order of this Court was not available

with him or the same escaped his notice.                   The

appellants were not present before the Estate Manager

to point out that there is such a subsisting order.

        Learned advocate appearing for the State in his

usual fairness says that since there is no reference to

the order of this Court setting aside the vesting in the

order of the Estate Manager, it may be proper to
                               5




remand the matter back to the Estate Manager for

fresh consideration of the appellants' application for

mutation.

        In view of such fair stand of the State and since

also we are of the opinion that this matter warrants

reconsideration since the Estate Manager did not

advert to this Court's order setting aside the vesting,

we set aside the order under appeal as well as the

order of the Estate Manager dated August 4, 2015,

and remand the matter back to the Estate Manager,

Kalyani, for considering the application for mutation

filed   by   the   present   appellants,   afresh   and   in

accordance with law taking into consideration the

order dated June 23, 2009, passed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.10487(W) of

2005.

        Let a hearing be held by the Estate Manager,

Kalyani, on May 6, 2022, at 12:00 noon which the

appellants or their authorized representative will be

entitled to attend.    No further notice of the meeting

need be given to the appellants. The appellants will be

at liberty to present their case before the Estate

Manager who shall take a reasoned decision on the

appellants' application in accordance with law within a

period of four weeks after the hearing. The decision

taken by the Estate Manager shall be communicated

to the appellants within a week from the date of such
                                 6




decision.    Needless to say, if the Estate Manager is

satisfied that the appellants are entitled to have their

names mutated in respect of the concerned property,

necessary consequential orders will be passed by the

Estate Manager.

      We have not gone into the merits of the

appellants' claim. It will be up to the Estate Manager

to take an informed decision in accordance with law.

      Since we have not called for affidavits, the

allegations contained in the stay petition shall be

deemed not to be admitted by the respondents.

MAT 352 of 2016 is, accordingly, disposed of

along with the connected application being IA No. CAN

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if

applied for, shall be given to the parties as

expeditiously as possible on compliance with all the

necessary formalities.

(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)