[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Sree Sree Iswar Brojeswar Mahadeb ... vs Gmss Infracon on 26 February, 2026
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
1
OD-1
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/2/2026
IN
ACR/3/2024
SREE SREE ISWAR BROJESWAR MAHADEB THAKUR JEW & ORS.
Vs
GMSS INFRACON
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 26th February, 2026
Mr. Debmalya Ghosal, Adv.
Mr. Chandrachur Biswas, Adv.
Mr. Niladri Khanra, Adv.
. . . for the petitioners.
Mr. Dipranjan Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Souvik Ghosh, Adv.
. . . for the respondent.
The Court :- ACR 3 of 2024 is an application under Section 7 of the
Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920. By an order dated 9 th September,
2025 the said application was disposed of by allowing a development
agreement being entered into by and between the petitioners who are the
shebaits of the deity and GMSS Infracon, a registered partnership firm being
the developer for development of premises no. 7, Pagladanga First Lane, P.O.
& P.S. - Tangra, Kolkata - 700 015 measuring about 6 bighas and 13
cottahs more or less (hereinafter referred to as the said property) and further
directed the registration of such agreement by 31 st October, 2025. The
development agreement was not registered within time and as such, an
application being GA 2 of 2026 was made for extending the time to register
the development agreement along with the Power of Attorney. In the said
application by an order dated 19th January, 2026 the time to register the
development agreement and the Power of Attorney was extended till 18 th
February, 2026. The said application was made returnable today.
Even after the time being extended, the development agreement could
not be registered. The maximum stamp duty payable for registration of a
development agreement as per schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889
(West Bengal Amendment) is Rs.75000/-. The developer had with his eyes
open entered into the agreement for the purpose of developing the property.
The developer is now trying to back out on the ground that he has already
invested Rs.21 lakhs and with the registration he has to pay to the
petitioners (shebaits) a further sum of Rs.1.79 crores. The petitioners say
that the developer has requested to honour a clause in the contract agreed
between the petitioners and the developer to have the document registered
after two years. This agreement, if any, between the parties is contrary to the
provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 and the Registration Act, 1908. A
document has to be presented for registration within six months from the
date of execution thereof. This Court fails to understand if the development
agreement is not a registered document, how will the development work will
be commenced and proceeded with by the developer. The payment of the
consideration money agreed between the parties cannot be altered by the
Court unless the parties themselves agree to modify it. It will be open for the
parties to modify the terms of payment because the same has nothing to do
with the official act of registration of the development agreement upon
payment of requisite stamp duty. This Court does not appreciate the conduct
of the petitioners (shebaits) as also the developer.
The matter is adjourned peremptorily till 24 th March, 2026.
It is made clear that in the event the parties are unable to resolve the
impasse, the order allowing the development shall be recalled and the
application being ACR 3 of 2024 will be dismissed disallowing the
development of the debuttar property.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
pa
