N.22Sl 151/CL 10.09.26 DL-174 Ct.-19 (S.R.) WPA 9330 of 2023 Samir Kumar Mullick & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyyay Mr. Tirthankar Basu … for the petitioners. Mr. Tapan Kumar Rakshit … for the respondent no.3. 1. Affidavit of service, as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioners, is taken on record. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent/State despite service. However, learned advocate for the writ petitioners and the respondent/Municipality are represented. 3. Since, none appears on behalf of the respondent/State despite service, this Court expresses its strong displeasure for non- appearance of the learned advocate for the respondent/State. 4. In view of such, the department is hereby directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Chamber of the learned Legal Remembrancer, Government of West Bengal, Writers’ Building, First Floor, Kolkata - 700 001 forthwith. 5. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no.2/authority commanding him to cancel/withdraw/rescind the reasoned order dated 30.01.2023 as passed by him, a copy of such has been annexed at page no.68 of the instant writ petition 6. It is pertinent to mention here that by the impugned order dated 30.01.2023, the respondent no.3/authority declined to carry out mutation in the name of the writ petitioners in respect of plot of land bearing B-4/167 at Kalyani. 7. At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners made his best possible endeavour to convince this Court by saying and by showing that an offer letter was issued to the respondent/State by the processor-in-interest of the writ petitioners in respect of the aforementioned plot for grant of lease and such offer was accepted. At the time of hearing, however, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners could not show any document to substantiate that title in respect of Plot No.B- 4/167 at Kalyani at all passed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners. 8. On being asked, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners candidly admitted before this Court that during the lifetime of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners 2 and/or after his demise no registered deed of lease in respect of the aforementioned plot of land has been executed either in the name of the said predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners or any of their legal heirs. 9. Such being the position, this Court has got no hesitation to hold that at no material point of time any title passes in respect of the aforementioned plot of land either in favour of the predecessor-in- interest of the writ petitioners or their legal heirs. As a natural corollary, the writ petitioners, thus, cannot claim mutation in respect of the plot in question as rightly held by the respondent no.2/authority. The instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, thus, dismissed. 10. There shall, however, no order as to costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) 3