Kathrina Isaac v. The Deputy Commissioner And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
WPA/925/2023 Smt. Kathrina Isaac ... Petitioner Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner and Others ... Respondents Mr. Prohit Mohan Lal ...for the Petitioner Mr. V.D. Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ...for the Respondents September 20, 2023 (M.A.Mobin) Item No.18 The petitioner in this Writ Petition is aggrieved with the inaction of the respondents, respondent no.3 in particular, in considering her two representations dated 18th March, 2021 and 21st August, 2023 respectively. The brief facts leading the petitioner to submit the above two representations would be as follows:- The petitioner was a beneficiary with respect to the last will and testament of her husband's mother Roshan Mary, since deceased, dated 27.10.2009. The respondent no.3, upon an application by the petitioner for mutation of the land bequeathed to her by dint of the said will, has issued the statutory "Form-J" dated 28.3.2017, in her favour.
However, allegedly, since thereafter the respondents have not taken any further steps in mutating the name of the present petitioner with respect to the said property. This has prompted the petitioner to submit two letters as mentioned above, to seek redress of her grievance of not mutating her name with respect to the property bequeathed to her under the will as mentioned above. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has indicated to the fact that a Civil Suit between the petitioner and other claimants of the said property is pending, being Title Suit No.25/2016.
On perusal of the record and consideration of the submissions made before this Court, it is found that, so far as the execution of will in favour of the present petitioner, with respect to the concerned property is concerned, there is no denial or dispute. As a matter of fact, it is evident that the respondent authority has issued statutory "Form-J" in favour of the present petitioner. In such circumstances, in absence of any direction from any competent court of law regarding not to proceed with the process of mutation of the name of the petitioner with respect to the said property as a beneficiary of the will as mentioned above, the respondent authority cannot sit tight over the matter without pursuing with due process subsequent to execution of a valid will. Mere pendency of a suit, which has not yet been determined in anybody's favour, should not preclude the respondents, to proceed in accordance with law, as there is
no material available to them to doubt or negate, execution of the will, in favour of the present petitioner. Needless to emphasize that due process pursuant to the execution of the will as mentioned above would be mutation of the petitioner's name in the record of rights.
On the observation as made above, this Court finds it proper to dispose of this Writ Petition with the direction upon the respondent no.3 in particular, to consider the petitioner's representations dated 18th March, 2021 and 21st August, 2023 respectively. In doing so the respondent authority shall afford adequate opportunity to all the concerned parties for hearing and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law.
The entire exercise as above shall be concluded by the respondent no.3 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
WPA 925 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)