Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Siskin Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 24 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :-
The Hon'ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN
WPA 23718 of 2017
With
CAN 1 of 2019(Old No. CAN 8570 of 2019)
Siskin Hotels Pvt. Ltd..
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Uday Shankar Chatterjee, Adv.,
Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, Adv.,
For the State: Mr. T.M Siddiqui, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Suddhadeb Adak, Adv.
For the DSDA: Mr.N.C Bihani, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. P.B Bihani, Adv.,
Mr. Moulinath Moitra, Adv.,
For respondent no.11: Mr. Madan Mohan Roy, Adv.
Hearing concluded on: 19.12.2024. Judgment on: 24.12.2024. PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -
1. By filing the instant writ petition under article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of
appropriate writ commanding the respondents more specifically
respondent no.5 for taking immediate steps to stop illegal digging on the
land belonging to the writ petitioner with a further prayer for issuance of
appropriate writ upon respondents/authorities for restoration of the land
2
belonging to the writ petitioner to its original shape along with other
ancillary reliefs.
2. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws
attention of this Court to page nos.15 to 23 of the writ petition being a
photo copy of the registered deed of gift dated 08.10.2009 whereby and
whereunder the property in question being part(s) of the old Bata plot
nos.1800/2160 and 1800/2208 was/were purchased by him for valuable
consideration. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that after the
purchase of the plots of land in the aforementioned two Bata plots which
have been renumbered as LR Plot no.1978 and 1979 the name of the writ
petitioner was duly recorded in the LRROR.
3. In course of his submission Mr. Chatterjee draws attention of this
Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the respondent nos. 4 and
5 i.e. Digha Shankarpur Development Authority and its functionary. It is
submitted that from the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos.4
and 5 it would reveal that it is the admitted position that original CS Plot
no.1800 in Mauja Khadal-Gobra was sub-divided into three plots being
RS plot no.1800(original), RS Plot no.1800/2160 (Bata) and RS Plot
no.1800/2208 (Bata). Drawing attention to page no.11 of the
aforementioned affidavit-in-opposition it is contended by Mr. Chatterjee
that in a proceeding under Section 51(A) of West Bengal Land Reforms
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Act of 1955’ in short) the
respondent nos. 4 and 5 raised an objection to the effect that the
3
aforementioned three Bata plots have already been recorded in the names
of the respondent no.4/authority by virtue of a land acquisition
proceeding and therefore the record of rights in respect of the two Bata
plots namely; 1800/2160 and 1800/2208 be rectified and recorded in the
name of the respondent no.4/ authority instead of one Anjali Khan.
Drawing attention to page no. 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition it is
submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in a proceeding under Section 41A of the
said Act of 1955 the Revenue Officer accepted the objection raised by the
respondent no.4 and came to a finding that the name of the said Anjali
Khan was wrongly recorded in the aforementioned two Bata plots namely;
1800/2160 and 1800/2208 and directed for correction of record of rights
in the name of respondent no.4/authority in respect of the aforesaid two
Bata plots.
4. Drawing further attention to page no.14 of the affidavit-in-reply as
filed by the writ petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition of the
respondent nos. 4 and 5 it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that challenging
the said order of Revenue Officer dated 06.09.1994 an appeal was
preferred before the appellate authority under Section 54 of the said Act
of 1955 and by an order dated 10.01.2008 the appellate authority set
aside the order of the Revenue Officer as passed on 06.09.1994. It is
further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in the said appeal the appellate
authority came to a specific finding that the aforementioned two plots
have not been acquired in connection with the LA case no.16/55-56
though the said two Bata plots were involved in the aforementioned LA
4
case. It is further contended by Mr.Chatterjee that the appellate authority
by its order dated 10.01.2008 submitted that since the said two Bata
plots have never been acquired the direction passed by the Revenue
Officer under cover of its order dated 06.09.1994 for correction of the
record of rights in favour of the respondent nos.4 and 6 is erroneous. It is
further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that challenging the said order dated
10.01.2008 no appeal has been preferred by the respondents nos. 4 and 5
and thus the order dated 10.01.2008 as passed under Section 54 of the
said Act of 1955 has attained its finality. In course of his submission Mr.
Chatterjee further draws attention of this Court to the order dated
14.06.2004 as passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in WP no. 2511(W)/2004
whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner (one Dilip Ghosh) of
the said writ petition for compensation was not considered favourably in
view of the finding of the said Court that the land in question have not
been acquired.
5. Mr. Chatterjee also draws attention of this Court to page no.19 of
the affidavit-in-reply as filed by him against the affidavit-in-opposition of
the respondent nos.4 and 5. It is submitted that in OA no.1417/10 (LRTT)
by its order dated 20.07.2010 the Tribunal directed the BL&RO
Ramnagar, District Purba Mednipur to consider the representation of the
writ petitioner for recording of its name in respect of the aforesaid two
Bata plots in accordance with law which indicates that the aforesaid two
Bata Plots ware practically free-hold lands occupied by the writ petitioner
5
and the other co-riyats and the said two Bata plots were never acquired
by the respondent/State as wrongly claimed.
6. It is thus submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that from the materials as
placed before this Court it would reveal that in respect of the
aforementioned two Bata plot nos.1800/2160 and 1800/2208 the present
writ petitioner is the lawful owner and occupier of the same and therefore
the respondents/authorities more specifically respondent nos. 4 and 5
cannot be permitted to proceed with the work of digging of the land of the
writ petitioner violating the writ petitioner’s constitutional right as
enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.
7. Per contra, Mr. Bihani, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondent nos.4 and 5 being the requiring body and its functionary
at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the prayer made in the
writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Bihani, learned Sr. Advocate that in
such prayers the writ petitioner has not made any prayer for issuance of
appropriate writ by setting aside the gazette notification of L.A proceeding
in respect of the aforementioned two Bata Plots. It is further submitted by
Mr. Bihani, learned Sr. Advocate that from the recitals of the title deed
dated 08.10.2009 of the writ petitioner it cannot be ascertained as to how
the title passes to the writ petitioner in respect of the portions of the
aforementioned two Bata plots and thus the writ petitioner is not entitled
to any relief as prayed for.
8. In his next fold of submission of Mr. Bihani, learned Sr. Advocate
took me to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by his client on 09.07.2018.
6
Drawing attention to page nos. 7 and 8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition
being a photo copy of the gazette notification dated 14.10.1955 it is
contended that by virtue of the said notification dated 14.10.1955 the
original RS Plot no.1800 in Mauja Khadal-Gobra was acquired by the
respondent/State in a land acquisition proceeding. It is submitted further
by Mr. Bihani that though subsequently the original plot no.1800 was
divided into three sub plots being no. 1800 and Bata plot nos.
1800/2160 and 1800/2208 but for some reason or other in respect of the
said two Bata plots it was noticed by the respondent no.4/authority that
its name had not been recorded in respect of the said two Bata plots and
thus an objection was submitted by respondent no.4/authority with the
Revenue Officer under Section 51(A) of the Act of 1955. Mr. Bihani,
learned Sr. Advocate contended further that by an order dated
06.09.1994 the Revenue Officer though considered such objection of the
said respondent no.4 favourably in respect of the aforementioned two
Bata plots but in an appeal preferred by one Anjali Khan the appellate
authority set aside the order of the Revenue Officer holding that Bata
plots nos. 1800/2160 and 1800/2208 were never acquired and thus there
is no necessity for recording the name of respondent no.4/authority in the
record of rights in respect of the said two Bata plots.
9. Drawing attention to the provision of Section 51(A) and Section 54
of the said Act of 1955 it is argued by Mr. Bihani that the Revenue Officer
and its appellate authority are empowered to pass the appropriate order
for publication of draft and final record of rights and/or correction of
7
record of rights but none of the aforesaid two authorities under the Act of
1955 are empowered to raise question with regard to the legality, validity
and correctness of land acquisition proceeding which at that material
time was governed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’ in short). It is thus submitted by Mr.
Bihani, learned Sr. Advocate that the finding of the appellate authority
dated 10.01.2008 has got no bearing in the instant lis.
10. In his next fold of submission Mr. Bihani, learned Sr. Advocate also
draws attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed on
behalf of the respondent/State more specifically by the Land Acquisition
Collector, Purba Mednipur. It is submitted that from the affidavit-in-
opposition as filed by the said collector it would reveal that the entire
plots of land bearing plot no.1800 was acquired by virtue of a gazette
notification dated 14.10.1955 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and the
possession of the said plot no.1800 was handed over to the Executive
Engineer, Construction Division in between 1955 to 1957 and the third
party interest have been created in the mean time by the respondent no.4,
who is the requiring body which may not be vitiated by issuing any writ as
prayed for by the writ petitioner.
11. Mr. Bihani, learned Senior Advocate places reliance upon the
reported decisions of Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 802 and Indore Development
Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.
8
12. Mr. Siddiqui, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the State while
adopting the argument of Mr. Bihani also draws attention of this Court to
the prayer portion of the writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Siddiqui,
learned Sr. Advocate that the prayers as made in the writ petition are
governed under the Specific Relief Act and for which the writ petitioner is
supposed to approach the common law forum by filing civil suit. It is thus
submitted by Mr. Siddiqui that in view of the availability of the alternative
remedy this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction must be very slow
in issuing any writ against the respondents. In course of his submission
Mr. Siddiqui, learned Sr. Advocate also draws attention of this Court to
the gazette notification dated 14.10.1955 as has been annexed to the
affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent/State on 26.11.2019. It is
submitted that from the said gazette notification it would reveal that the
entire RS plot no.1800 Mauja Khadal-Gobra has been acquired by the
respondent/State by issuing a gazette notification and from page no.9 of
such affidavit-in-opposition it would reveal further that the entire RS plot
no.1800 has been handed over to the Executive Engineer, Construction
Division (Roads) between 28.11.1955 and 09.05.1957 in connection with
LA case no.16/1955 and 1956. It is further submitted by Mr. Siddiqui
that the registered deed of conveyance dated 08.10.2009 was executed
much after land acquisition proceeding and thus the present writ
petitioner cannot get any title over any portion of the aforementioned two
Bata plots since his vendor Hemanta Kumar Mishra had no marketable
title over any portion of the lands in the aforementioned two Bata plots.
9
13. Mr. Siddiqui, learned Sr. Advocate further argued that inordinate
delay occurred in filing the instant writ petition and thus the writ
petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for since the respondent
no.4 being the requiring body had created third party interest in the mean
time.
14. It is further submitted by Mr. Siddiqui that neither the Revenue
Officer nor the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 51 and
54 of the said Act of 1955 can come to a finding with regard to the
genuineness of any land acquisition proceeding since under the above
mentioned two Sections their powers are limited to the extent of revision,
correction and publication of the final record of rights after entertaining
the objections, if there be any. It is thus submitted by the Mr. Siddiqui,
learned Senior advocate appearing for State that it is a fit case of
dismissal of the instant writ petition.
15. In course of submission Mr. Siddiqui places his reliance upon the
reported decisions of Mahavir and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr
reported in (2018) 3SCC 588 and Indore Development Authority vs.
Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.
16. Upon consideration of the entire materials as placed before this
Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties
this Court proposes to come to a logical conclusion as to whether the
instant writ petition is at all maintainable or not in view of the fact it has
been strongly contended on behalf of both sets of respondents that from
the prayers made in the writ petition it would reveal that the writ
10
petitioner has not made any prayer for issuance of appropriate writ for
cancelation and/or setting aside the land acquisition proceeding and also
on account of availability of alternative remedy.
17. At this juncture this court intends to place its reliance upon the
reported decision namely; Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court have dealt with principles of law relating to exercise of writ
jurisdiction even when alternative remedy is available. Relevant portion of
the reported decisions of Radha Krishan Industries (supra) is
reproduced hereinbelow in verbatim:-
“”27. The principles of law which emerge are that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs
can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights,
but for any other purpose as well.
27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court
is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved
person.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where:
(a)the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a
fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of
its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate
case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained
when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.
11
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the
remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be
had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the
discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule
of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience
and discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High
Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if
the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the
controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view
would not readily be interfered with.
28. These principles have been consistently upheld by this Court in
Chand Ratan v. Durga Prasad reported in (2003) 5 SCC 399,
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot reported in
(1974) 2SCC 706 and Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India reported in
(2008) 5 SCC 632 among other decisions.”
18. Keeping in mind the above proposition of law if I look to the writ
petition as well as to its prayer portion it appears to me that the writ
petitioner by filing the instant writ petition has practically made an
attempt to establish its title over the portions of the aforesaid two Bata
plots by virtue of the registered deed of conveyance dated 08.10.2009 as
executed in its favour.
19. From the prayer portion of the writ petition it further appears to
this Court that the writ petitioner has practically made prayer for
issuance of prohibitory and mandatory injunction which is admittedly the
subject matter of the Specific Relief Act and can be sought by approaching
jurisdictional civil court by filing a civil suit.
12
20. In course of his argument Mr. Chatterjee was very vocal regarding
the order dated 14.06.2004 as passed by the appellate authority in a
proceeding under Section 54 of the Act of 1955. Admittedly while passing
the order dated 10.01.2008 the appellate authority under Section 54 of
the said Act of 1955 set aside the order of the Revenue Officer regarding
the correctness of the record of rights in respect of the aforementioned
two Bata plots holding that no land acquisition took place in respect of
the aforementioned two Bata plots which are part and parcel of the
original RS Plot no. 1800. The most crucial question thus come up for
consideration before this Court is as to whether an appellate authority
under Section 54 of the said Act of 1955 can at all come to such a finding
within the periphery of the said Act of 1955.
21. Admittedly at the relevant point of time the land acquisition was
governed under the Act of 1894 and the said Act prescribes the mode of
acquisition of land, quantification, disbursement of compensation and
provision of appeal, if a land looser is aggrieved with the quantum of
acquisition.
22. In considered view of this Court however, the Act of 1955 operates
in a different domain which is distinguishable from the domain of the Act
of 1894. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition this Court
now proposes to look to the provision of Section 51(A) and 54 of the West
Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 which are reproduced hereinbelow in
verbatim:-
13
“51A. Draft and final publication of the record-of-rights. (1)
When a record-of-rights has been revised or prepared, the Revenue
Officer shall publish a draft of the record so revised or prepared in
the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and shall receive
and consider any objections which may be made during such period
to any entry therein or to any omission therefrom.
(2)When all such objections have been considered and disposed of
according to such rules as the State Government may make in this
behalf, the Revenue Officer shall finally prepare the record and cause
such record to be finally published in the prescribed manner and
make a certificate stating the fact of such final publication and the
date thereof and shall date and subscribe the same under his name
and official designation.
(3)Separate publication of different parts of draft or final records may
be made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) for different local
areas.
(4) An officer specially empowered by the State Government may, on
application within one year, or on his own motion, from the date of
publication of the record-of-rights under sub-section (2), revise an
entry in the record finally published in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (2) after the persons interested are given an
opportunity of being heard and after recording reasons therefor.
(5)[ Any person aggrieved by an order passed in revision under sub-
section (4) may, within such period, and on payment of such fee, as
may be prescribed, appeal in the prescribed manner to the prescribed
authority of the district in which the land referred to in the record-of-
rights is situated:
Provided that where the appeal is preferred to a Collector, he may
transfer the appeal to such officer subordinate to him as may be
prescribed:
14
Provided further that the officer to whom the appeal is transferred is
superior in rank or position to the officer or authority making the
order appealed against.] .
(6)The certificate of final publication referred to in sub-section (2), or
in the absence of such certificate, a certificate signed by the Collector
of any district in which the area to which the record-of-rights relates
is wholly or partly situate, stating that a record-of-rights has been
finally published on a specified date, shall be conclusive proof of
such publication and of the date thereof.
(7)The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare with regard to any area specified in the notification that the
record-of-rights for every village included in such area has been
finally published and such notification shall be conclusive proof of
such publication.
(8)In any suit or other proceeding in which a record-of-rights is
revised or prepared and finally published under this Chapter, or a
duly certified copy of the record or an extract therefrom, is produced,
such record-of-rights shall be presumed to have been finally
published unless such publication is expressly denied.
(9)Every entry in the record-of-rights finally published under sub-
section (2) including an entry revised under sub-section (4) or
corrected under section 51B or section 51BB shall, subject to any
modification by an order on appeal under sub-section (5), be
presumed to be correct.”
“54. Appeals.
(1)Subject to any special provisions for appeal made in this Act or in
any rules made under this Act, an appeal shall lie in the manner
indicated below
15
(a) to a Collector, when the order is made by a Revenue Officer or
revenue authority below the rank of a Collector;
(b) to the Commissioner of the Division, when the order is made by
the Collector of a district within the Division; and
(2)Where, at the commencement of section 22 of the West Bengal
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971, any appeal is pending before
the Member, Board of Revenue, such appeal shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1) be disposed of by such Member.
(3) After any appeal is preferred to a Collector, he may transfer the
appeal to any officer subordinate to him as may be prescribed :
Provided that the officer to whom the appeal is transferred is superior
in rank or position to the officer or authority making the order
appealed against.
(4) An order passed in appeal shall be final.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, the
State Government may, on its own motion, correct any erroneous
decision passed by the Revenue Officer or by any officer in an appeal
under the foregoing provisions of this section and any such order
passed by the State Government shall be final and shall not be called
in question in any court.”
23. On perusal of the aforesaid two Sections it thus appears to this
court that under Section 51A of the said Act of 1955 an officer empowered
by the State Government (herein the Revenue Officer) is the appropriate
authority for publication of the draft and final record of rights. He further
possesses the power of revision of record of rights which have been
published finally. If a person is aggrieved with the finding of the authority
under Section 51A may prefer an appeal under Section 54 of the said Act
of 1955.
16
24. At this juncture if I look to the order dated 10.01.2008 as passed by
the appellate authority under Section 54 of the said Act of 1955 it appears
to me that the said appellate authority while setting aside the order of the
Revenue Officer as passed under Section 51A of the said Act of 1955
transgressed into the domain of Act of 1894 by holding that no
acquisition of land took place in respect of two aforementioned Bata plots.
25. In considered view of this Court the appellate authority under
Section 54 of the said Act of 1955 had got no authority to come to such a
finding. In further considered view of this Court the order dated
14.06.2004 as passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in WP 25511(W) of 2004 is
no way helpful to the writ petitioner since in the said writ petition the
present writ petitioner was not a party and further the said Court was not
made aware of the order dated 06.09.1994 as passed by the Revenue
Officer under Section 51 A of the said Act of 1955 especially when at that
material time the order dated 06.09.1994 was not set aside by the
appellate authority.
26. This Court is satisfied that sufficient materials have been placed
before this Court by both the sets of respondents that the aforementioned
suit two Bata plots were the subject matter of the land acquisition
proceeding which was published by a notification dated 14.10.1955.
Sufficient materials have also been placed before this Court from both the
sets of respondents that soon thereafter the mother plot no.1800 in the
aforementioned mauja was handed over to the Executive Engineer,
Construction Division (Roads) and therefore with the passage of time third
17
parties’ interest have been created who have not been made parties in the
instant writ petition.
27. This Court considers that at this juncture the relevant portion of
reported decision of Indore Development Authority is required to be
looked into which is quoted below in verbatim:-
“356. We are of the opinion that courts cannot invalidate acquisitions,
which stood concluded. No claims in that regard can be entertained
and agitated as they have not been revived. There has to be legal
certainty where infrastructure has been created or has been
developed partially, and investments have been made, especially
when land has been acquired long back. It is the duty of the Court to
preserve the legal certainty, as observed in Vodafone International
Holdings BV v. Union of India. The landowners had urged that since
the 2013 Act creates new situations, which are beneficial to their
interests, the question of delay or laches does not arise. This Court is
of the opinion that the said contention is without merits. As held
earlier, the doctrine of laches would always preclude an indolent
party, who chooses not to approach the court, or having approached
the court, allows an adverse decision to become final, to reagitate the
issue of acquisition of his holding. Doing so, especially in Cases,
where the title has vested with the State, and thereafter with
subsequent interests, would be contrary to public policy. In A.P. State
Financial Corpn. v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills, this Court observed that
equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and
new subtleties invented to evade the law. There is no dearth of talent
left in longing for the undue advantage of the wholesome provisions
of Section 24(2) on the basis of wrong interpretation.”
18
28. On perusal of the entire materials it further appears to this Court
that the writ petitioner has prayed for the reliefs as made out in the
prayer portion of the writ petition on the basis of the registered deed of
conveyance dated 08.10.2009. It further appears to this Court that by
virtue of the aforementioned registered deed of conveyance whether title in
respect of the portions of the suit two Bata plots have at all been conveyed
to the writ petitioner is required to be decided by trial on evidence which
machinery a writ court does not possess like a civil court.
29. Admittedly from page no.25 of the writ petition it would reveal that
the name of the writ petitioner was recorded in the current LRRoR but the
same is no-way helpful to the petitioner in view of the fact that a record of
rights is merely a document of possession and not of a title as has been
decided in the reported decision of Jitendra Singh (supra) in the
following manner:-
“6……………………………………………………………………………………
Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation
entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person
and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal
purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute
with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation
entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is
claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the
appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only
thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary
mutation entry can be made.”
19
30. In view of the discussion made hereinabove the instant writ petition
fails and is hereby dismissed along with all pending connected
applications, if there be any.
31. Interim order if there be any, stands hereby vacated.
32. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be
given to the parties on completion of usual formalities.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
Later
After pronouncement of judgement, Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate on
behalf of the writ petitioner, prays for a limited period of stay operation of
the judgement as passed today.
Prayer for stay is considered and refused.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)