Nisha Rani v. The Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil And ANR.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRITJURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY WPA No. 413 of 2024 Smt. Nisha Rani ... Petitioner
Versus
The Tehsildar, Port Blair and another ... Respondents For the Petitioner : Ms. A. S. Zinu For the Respondent No.1 : Ms. Babita Das For the Respondent No.2 : Mr.Deep Chaim Kabir Mr. S.Ajith Prasad Heard on : September 04, 2024 Judgment on : September 09, 2024 Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.
This Writ Application is directed against the inaction of respondent No.1 in considering and disposing the application made by the petitioner to mutate the landed property recorded in the name of Shri Alok Ram, the husband of the petitioner since deceased.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Shri Alok Ram being married on 19.02.2018 which was duly registered before the Marriage
Officer (ADM), South Andaman on 21.11.2019. It is further contended by the petitioner that after her marriage the relationship between the petitioner and her in-laws became strain as a result the petitioner was compelled to file a case under Domestic Violence Act being Misc. Case No. 100 of 2021 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate. During pendency of the above case, the husband of the petitioner died on 27.05.2024 by committing suicide. The husband of the petitioner Alok Ram since deceased left behind the petitioner and his mother as a surviving legal heir. It is also contended by the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner is the recorded owner of the following landed property:- a) Land bearing survey Nos. 92/2, 104 & 76/2/1, area 0.0800 Hects, 0.02 Hects and 0.0074 Hects situated at Brichgunj village, within Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District.
b) Land bearing Survey No. 42, area 0.0400 Hects out of total area 0.65 Hects situated at Bimblitan village, within Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District.
c) Land bearing Survey No. 36/1, area 0.0932 Hects, out of total area 0.373 Hects situated at Dollygunj village, within Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman.
The petitioner contends that after completion of all the ritual, the petitioner being the lawful wife and legal heir of the estate left behind by her husband made an application dated 03.07.2024 before the Tehsildar, Port Blair ie. the Respondent No.1 herein for mutation of the landed properties in favour of the petitioner and her mother-in-law being the legal heir. The petitioner thereafter visited the office of the Respondent on several occasions for mutation of the above said landed properties in her favour and in favour of her mother in law but neither the Respondent authority mutated the subject properties nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondent No.1 has come up before this Court with the instant writ application.
Pursuant to filing of this writ application, an application for addition of parties was filed by respondent No.2 for impleading her as a party respondent and the said application was allowed. The respondent No.2 in her affidavit-in-opposition has made several allegations against the writ petitioner. However, the main allegations are as follows:- The respondent No.2 has contended that this writ application is not maintainable on the ground of suppression. Secondly, on the ground that the prayer made by the writ
petitioner cannot be granted by the writ Court and the petitioner has sought to invoke article 226 of the Constitution of India in the writ application to settle private law dispute. With regard to suppression of fact the respondent No. 2 has contended that the writ petitioner has completely suppressed before this Court that an FIR was lodged against her at Aberdeen Police Station being Aberdeen Police Station Case No. 107 dated 07.06.2024 under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, Praveen Bhushan and Sneha over abetting and instigating the suicide of late Alok Ram. Secondly, the respondent has contended that the law requires Succession Certificate, probate, letters of administration for different circumstances and an attempt was made by the petitioner to avoid all such proper proceedings for fear that the truth will come out and rather to substitute such material with a mere death certificate and is resorting to suppression and subterfuge to obtain order from this Court.
The entire background of litigation and huge number of cases and issues pending between Alok Ram and his family on one hand, and the petitioner on the other hand has been completely suppressed. It is contended that the marriage between Alok Ram and the petitioner took place out of love and
they were residing together on the residence of the respondent No.2 but after sometime, the petitioner had huge demands upon said Alok Ram and he being unable to fulfil the demand, writ petitioner abandoned her matrimonial life and voluntarily left the residence.
The petitioner proceeded to lodge a complaint before the Women Cell on 02.12.2021 and further complaints before the Aberdeen Police Station on 15.12.2021 alleging domestic violence, abuse and torture when in fact at all material times she was the aggressor against the respondent No.2. After leaving respondent No.2 in fulfilment of her promise to take the property of the respondent No.2 the writ petitioner instituted a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair being Misc. Case No. 100/2021 on 16.12.2021 together with an application under Section 23 for interim relief filed on 16.12.2021. In the said proceeding the case was transferred to the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Additional Court, Port Blair for enquiry and disposal and the Learned Court on the very same day was pleased to pass an order exparte restraining the respondent No.2, Alok Ram and his family from ousting the writ petitioner from shared household.
The said Misc. Case instituted by the writ petitioner was essentially manufactured to victimise the entire family of the respondent No.2 and to teach the deceased son of respondent No.2 a lesson.
Since the interim order passed by Learned Magistrate on 16.12.2021 the said Nisha Rani came on certain occasions to her home and created huge disturbance and trouble with physical, mental and verbal abuse upon her while making false and fake allegation before the Learned Magistrate. On each occasion the writ petitioner would pick a fight with her late son and her daughters resorting to physical, mental and verbal abuse of her entire family and then used the incident to portray that she was the victim rather than the perpetrator of the torture.
Respondent No.2 having no other alternative and suffering torture on 27/12/2021 made an application before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Port Blair under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 107 of 2021 against the said Nisha Rani.
On 3rd January 2022, the writ petitioner came to the house of respondent No. 2, verbally abused and physically assaulted her by inflicting injury and on two occasions the Respondent No. 2 had to be admitted to hospital for treatment. The writ petitioner also instituted an F.I.R against the Respondent No. 2, her deceased son Alok Ram and her daughter Archana at Police Station being Aberdeen Case No. 5 of 2022 dated 3rd January 2022 under Section 342/323/504/506/34 of Indian Penal Code adding Section 498A of Indian Penal Code falsely. The Respondent No. 2 along with her son and daughter were arrested and granted bail.
The interim order dated 28.02.2022 was passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Additional Court, Port Blair in connection with Misc Case No. 100 of 2021 allowing the application under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to uphold her right to stay in her home. By misusing this order dated 28.02.2022 the said Nisha Rani thereafter unleashed a reign of terror upon her and her family members from February 2022 to July 2022 with continuous torture and physical and mental abuse by said Nisha Rani upon her.
On 18.04.2024 an application was filed by the said Nisha Rani before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Additional Court Port Blair for executing of the earlier order permitting the petitioner to reside in the house there in accordance with the order dated 28.02.2022. The son of the Respondent No. 2 also filed an application on 22.04.2024 under Section 25(2) for modification and alteration of the order dated 28.02.2022 based on the changed circumstances. After hearing out both applications one after the another, the Learned Court below was pleased to pass a common order dated 29.04.2024 disposing both the application of the writ petitioner and Alok Ram and by refusing to alter or modify the earlier order dated 28.02.
2022 and by directing the SHO, Aberdeen Police Station to ensure the said Nisha Rani was put into proper physical possession of her portion shared household being double storied R.C.C Building on Survey No. 57/3, Shadipur village and that the possession remains protected and she is not evicted or excluded from such part. Since the passing of the order from 30.04.2024 to 27.05.
implementation of the Court Order dated 29.04.2024 together with demands of Money.
The Order of the Learned Court was complied over jealously by SHO Vishal Ram, who was acting in connivance with Nisha Rani and Praveen Bhushan and who went far beyond the scope of the Court Order to forcibly put Nisha Rani into possession offer rooms as well.
On 09.05.2024 over the continuous torture and abuse of power by the SHO Aberdeen P.S Vishal Ram, the Respondent No. 2 and her Son Late Alok Ram moved a writ petition being W.P.A No. 243/ 2024 before this court demonstrating the Police excesses and the misuse of law by the writ petitioner Nisha Rani to cause continuous mental agony and distress. Due to the continuous unbearable torture and mental agony, on 27.05.2024 the son of Respondent No. 2 was found dead at his office being said to have apparently committed suicide under extreme pressure, torture and instigation of Nisha Rani, Praveen Bhushan and Sneha.
On 07.06.2024 FIR was lodged at Aberdeen PS against the writ petitioner Praveen Bhushan and Sneha and case was instituted under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
Heard the Learned Advocate for the petitioner and the Learned Advocates for the Respondent No. 1 and respondent No.2.
Perused the petition filed and material on record. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the case instituted by the writ petitioner is not maintainable on the ground of suppression. Learned Advocate submits that it is a well establishedprinciple of writ jurisprudence that the writ petition is not maintainable where there is clear suppression of material fact bordering on a fraud on the Court. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 is equitable , extraordinary and discretionary, and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything.
Learned Advocate further submits if a litigant withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side, then such litigant is guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties, which cannot be countenanced. It is also submitted by the learned advocate that although the petitioner has made prayer for mutation but the
same was done with the intention of property right and documents, which can be used to permit illegal occupation or possession of properties with actual intention of grabbing unentitled properties.
It is further submitted that the writ petitioner has invited the writ jurisdiction to settle the private dispute which is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate that the Tehsildar, Port Blair has specificpower under the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation. However, he is merely the keeper of the records of rights over the properties and has no right to decide on matters of rights, title or interest in regard to inherited properties and that is the sole province of a competent civil Court having civil jurisdiction over the matter. In the instant case, the petitioner has sought for an order of mandamus directing the Tehsildar to mutate the subject properties in the name of the petitioner. This prayer is not maintainable as this Court cannot go into the analysis of facts or law to decide whether her name should be mutated in the land records.
In accordance with the Regulations as well as the law of succession, the rights of the petitioner have to be first of all
established by way of succession, inheritance etc. where the nature of rights, title must be established after which only mutation can be prayed for. Therefore, the Tehsildar has no authority to carry out the mutation where the petitioner has not yet established her right as per law before the appropriate forum.
Learned Advocate also submits that a specific bar exists in the Regulations that any issues or disputes over records of right has to be dealt with solely by a civil Court and not by the revenue officers including the Tehsildar upto the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has no statutory right to have records amended in her name without first establishing the issue of right title and inheritance, succession or heirship in accordance with law.
Learned Advocate also submits that as the respondent No.2 also contended in the affidavit-in-opposition and has submitted that the deceased has made his last wishes clear by a registered will and where the petitioner actually has no right whatsoever, the competent civil court and not the Tehsildar has jurisdiction. The Tehsildar cannot merely amend the records without being satisfied as to the claim of the person applying for
mutation and hence, the petitioner has no rights which can be enforced by this Court.
Learned Advocate refers to the following judicial decisions:-
1) K.K.
Saksena Vs.
International Commission on irrigation and drainage reported in MANU/SC/1213/2014.
2) Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Reported in MANU/SC/0684/2021.
3) S. Tirupathi Rao Vs. M. Lingamaiah and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0727/2024.
4) Raj Kumar Soni and Ors. Vs. State of U.P and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/7271/2007.
Learned Advocate, Ms. Babita Das appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that notice has already been issued by the Tehsildar, Port Blair to both the writ petitioner, respondent No.2 Kamala Devi and Archana Kumari. Learned Advocate submits that the Tehsildar respondent No. 1 is proceeding in accordance with law. Upon hearing the Learned Advocates and considering the facts of this case, this Court is of the view that as much argument is made on the ground of fraud it is necessary to ascertain as to whether the writ petitioner has committed fraud on this Court. It is well settled principle of law that fraud and justice cannot dwell together and fraud
vitiates justice. A person is said to have committed fraud upon the Court if he wilfully suppresses the material facts which if he discloses will disentitle him to the reliefs claimed in the petition. Now, whether particular fact is material in the case before the Court will vary from case to case and each case has to be decided on its own merit. In the instant matter upon perusing the representation appearing in P-4 of the writ application, it appears that the writ petitioner has requested the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman to mutate the landed properties recorded in the name of Shri Alok Ram since deceased. In the said representation the petitioner has stated that her husband Alok Ram died intestate and as per settled provision of law has died leaving behind his mother namely Kamala Devi, the respondent No.
2 herein and the writ petitioner as his legal heirs. As this particular information is given by the petitioner to the Tehsildar, Port Blair, this Court is of the view that there is no suppression of material facts. Moreover in the writ petition, the petitioner has also stated that the relationship between her and her inlaws was strained and that her husband died by committing suicide. Now, with regard to the submission made by the Learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 that this writ application for a direction upon the respondent No.
the matter being adjudicated by the said authority concerned who are competent to adjudicate the same. Although mandamus cannot be issued to mutate the name of the writ petitioner with regard to the landed property recorded in the name of Shri Alok Ram in her favour, but it is necessary to decide as to whether the respondent No.1, the Tehsildar, Port Blair, South Andaman can be directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner in accordance with law upon giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of being heard. In order to decide this issue it is necessary to discuss the relevant provisions contained in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966.
This Regulations is to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue powers of revenue officers rights and liabilities of holders of land, land tenure and other matters relating to land in the Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Regulation 79 of the Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations provides that1) The Deputy Commissioner shall from time to time arrange the villages of the tehsil into patwari circle and may, at any time, alter the limits of any existing circle or create new circles or abolish existing ones.
2) The Deputy Commissioner shall appoint one or more patwaries to each patwari circle for the maintenance and correction of land records and for such other duties as may be prescribed.
Regulation 83 of the Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations provides as follows:
A record of rights shall, in accordance with the rules made under this Regulation, be prepared and maintained for every and such regard shall include the following particulars, namely:- (a) The names of all tenants together with survey numbers or plot numbers held by each of them and their area;
(b) The nature and extent of the respective interest of such person and the conditions or liabilities, if any, attaching thereto;
(c) The land revenue, if any, payable by each persons; and (d) Such other particulars as may be prescribed.
Regulation 84 of the Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations provides as follows:
(1) Any person acquiring by succession , survivorship, inheritance partition, purchase, gift, mortgage, lease, or otherwise any right in land shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the patwari of the village within six months from the date of such acquisition and the patwari shall give a written acknowledgement in the prescribed form for such report to the person making it :
Provided that when the person acquiring such right is a minor or is otherwise disqualified his
guardian of other person having charge of his property shall make report to the Patwari.
Explanation 1 - For the purpose of this section, right in land does not include an assessment over or a charge (not amounting to a mortgage of the kind specified in section 100 of transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the land.
Explanation 2 - A person, in whose favour a mortgage is redeemed or paid off or a lease is determined, acquires a right within the meaning of this section.
Explanation 3 -Intimation in writing required to be given to the patwari under the Section may be given through a messenger or in person or may be sent by registered post.
(2) Any such person as is referred to in subsection (1) may also report in writing his acquisition of such right to the Tehsildar within six months from the date of such acquisition.
Regulation 85 of the Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations provides as follows:
85. (1) The Patwari shall enter in a register of mutations every acquisition of right reported to him under section 84 or coming to his notice from intimation received from the Tehsildar or
the Gram Panchayat, if any, from any other source.
(2) Whenever the patwari makes an entry in the register of mutation, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in any place of public resort appointed by the Deputy Commissioner in the village.
(3) The fact of such entry shall be proclaimed in the village by beat of drum and written intimation thereof shall be given to all persons appearing to the patwari to be interested in the mutation and also to the Gram Panchayats or where a Gram Panchayats has been not established, to the Chaudhari appointed under section 132.
(4) Should any objection to any entry made under sub-section [1] in the register of mutation be made either orally or in writing to the patwari, he shall enter the particulars of the objections in a register of disputed cases and shall give a written acknowledgement in the prescribed form for the objection to the person making it.
(5) Every objection entered in the register of disposed cases shall be disposed of and every entry in the register of mutation shall be tested, and if found correct or after correction, as the case may be, shall be certified by such officers and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(6) Entries in the register of mutations, when duly certified, shall be transferred to the recordof-rights in the prescribed manner.
(7) Any report regarding the acquisition of any right of the kind specified in section 84 received by the patwari after the specified period shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the section:
Provided that no action on the report of the patwari shall be taken by the Tehsildar unless it is verified by the revenue inspector.
Upon perusing the relevant Regulations and more specifically Regulation 84 (1) it is clear that any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise any right in land has duty to report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the patwari of the village within six months from the date of such acquisition and the patwari shall give a written acknowledgement in the prescribed form for such report to the person making it.
Regulation 2 provides that whenever the patwari makes an entry in the register of mutation, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in any place of public resort appointed by the deputy commissioner in the village and the fact of such entry shall be proclaimed in the village by beat of drum and written intimation thereof shall be given to all persons appearing to the Patwari to be interested in mutation and also to the Gram Panchayat. In the event, there is any objection to any entry made under subsection 1 in the
register of mutation be made either orally or in writing to the Patwari, he shall enter the particulars of the objections in a register of disputed case, and shall give a written acknowledgement in the prescribed form for the objection to the person making it.
As per clause 5 of Regulation 84 every objection entered in the register of disputed case shall be disposed of and every entry in the register of mutation shall be tested, and if found correct, or after correction, as the case maybe, shall be certified by such officers, and in such manner as may be prescribed. As Regulation 83 provides maintenance of records of rights in accordance with rules mentioning the names of the tenant their nature and extent of the interest and Regulation 84 creates upon the person who acquires by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase any right in land a duty to report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the patwari of the village, this Court does not find any error on the part of the writ petitioner in making such representation before the respondent No.
1 when as per clause 2 the same can also be provided to Tehsildar as well as the patwari. When a particular representation is made and an objection is submitted the Tehsildar or the patwari they have the duty to dispose of the representation along with objection for making rectification in the record of rights.
survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase or otherwise any right in land as the application is served upon the authority. The authority have also some duty to decide the same as provided in the said Regulation. As per the document submitted by respondent No. 1 it appears that notice is also issued to the writ petitioner the respondent No.2 as well as Archana Kumari daughter of respondent No.2 on the application of Smt. Archana Kumari for mutation of land being Survey No. 104 area 0.03 hectare situated at Brichgunj village, Port Blair of Shri Alok Ram, son of late Ashok Ram on the basis of registered will purported to be executed by Ashok Ram since deceased. In the case of Jitendra Shigh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- '5.
We have heard Shri Nishes Sharma, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The Petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the Petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 09.08.2011, ie, before eh death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executants of the will.
itself has been disputed. 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 crystallized and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.'
In the case of S. Tirupathi Rao Vs. M. Lingamaiah and ors. (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- '81. Having answered the two legal issues and before recording our conclusion, we cannot resist reflecting on the point of fraud having vitiated the proceedings. This point, in turn, emerges because the Division Bench (review) erroneously held the State to have practised fraud; and this discussion is necessitated since, to the contrary, there seems to be sufficient reason to hold the first Respondent responsible therefor. The writ petition, in the form the same had been presented by the first Respondent, does evince clear suppression of a material fact bordering on fraud on court and having the potential to render it not maintainable. But to this too, there is a caveat. This question,
though quite fundamental in nature, does not appear to have been argued by the Appellant before the High Court and also before us. Thus, argument on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition not having been advanced before us by the parties, whatever we observe and record hereafter is merely an indication of the direction our decision would have taken, if such point were raised or argued. We may not be misunderstood of having decided a point without calling upon the parties to address on it.
82. The effect of suppression of a material fact on maintainability of a writ petition is too well known.
But what is important is, whether suppression of a material fact in a writ petition amounts to fraud on court and whether an issue of maintainability based on suppression can be examined if the judgment and/or order of disposal of the writ petition has attained finality by reason of no appeal being carried therefrom.
84. Quite recently, in K. Jayaram v. BDA MANU/SC/1199/2021 : 2021: INSC:842 :
(2022) 12 SCC 815, this Court held:
10. It is well settled that the jurisdiction exercised by High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the Petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing
or supressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.'
In the case of Raj Kumar Soni and Ors. Vs. State of U.P and Ors. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- '12. The Supreme Court opined that the High Court was right in refusing to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In M.C Mehta v. Union of India Manu/SC/0982/1999 : [1999] 3SCR1173 this Court, relying upon Venkateshwara Rao (1 supra) observed ;
the above case is clear authority for the proposition that it is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of natural justice. The Court can under Article 32 of Article 226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party, in violation of principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law.'
Upon perusing the petition and considering the facts of the case and upon hearing the Learned Advocate and upon considering Judicial
decision, this Court is of the view that in this writ application although a prayer seeking direction upon respondent No.1 to mutate the name of the petitioner is made but as it also contains a prayer to dispose the representation for mutation dated 03.07.2024 submitted by the petitioner, this writ application is maintainable in the eye of law. As Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has power to mould the relief necessary relief can be granted in the exercise of such power in the interest of justice. Upon perusing the materials on record it appears that the respondent No.2 has not been able to make out any case of suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner. On the other hand, by considering the document relied upon by the respondent No.
1 with a copy upon the other Learned Advocates it appears that an application for mutation has already been taken out by daughter of respondent No.2 for which the notice is already given to both writ petitioner and respondent No.2. Thus this Court is of the view that necessary direction may be issued upon the respondent No. 1 to complete the case of mutation upon considering the application and representation pending before it in accordance with law upon giving the necessary parties hearing. It is however, made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the right of any parties to get their names mutated in the government record and it is up to the respondent No.
compliance of Regulation 84 and 85 and other relevant procedures provided under the law. The process of the application for mutation made by the writ petitioner as well as the daughter of the respondent No.2 shall be completed at an early date preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. WPA No. 413 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgement be supplied to the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
(Biswaroop Chowdhury,J.)