Tapan Mallick @ Tapan Kumar Mallick v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE 17.03.2025 Ct. no.2 Sl. 12 Moumita WPA 5158 of 2025 Sri Tapan Mallick @ Tapan Kumar Mallick Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Joyjit Roy Choudhury Mr. Dhrubabrata Basu .... For the Petitioner Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Govt. Adv.

Mr. Srinanth Singha Roy ... For the State-Respondents Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.

Mr. Joyjit Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appears for the petitioner.

Mr. Srinanth Singha Roy, learned Advocate led by Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhayay, learned senior Advocate appears for the State-respondent no. 1.

None appears for the rest of the respondents. The petitioner submits that by virtue grant of probate by the jurisdictional Civil Court annexure p-1 at page 12, the petitioner has become owner of an immovable property mentioned therein. The petitioner claims mutation. The mutation application has been submitted on December 5, 2024 annexure p-2 at page 17 to the writ petition. Since no step has been taken a demand notice has been served on behalf of the petitioner

through his advocate's letter dated February 17, 2025 annexure p-4 at page 29 to the writ petition. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 shall forthwith consider the mutation application submitted by the petitioner, as referred to above. In the event, the petitioner is required to submit any application in the prescribed form the same shall be done by the petitioner positively within a period of two weeks from date. The respondent no. 3 shall dispose of the mutation application of the petitioner positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

In the event the mutation is rejected, the rejection with reasons shall be communicated to the petitioner within a further period of one week upon expiry of the said eight weeks.

It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

It is also made clear that this order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner, if the petitioner does not succeed to his claim before the respondent no. 3 strictly in accordance with law. Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition, WPA 5158 of 2025 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)