IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 23567 of 2025 Pannalal Mom Prakash vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Argha Banerjee Mr. Tarapada Das For the respondent/State : Mr. Amrita Lal Dhar Mr. Chiranjit Pal Heard on : 16.09.2026 Judgment on : 16.09.2026 Partha Sarathi Sen, J.: 1. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs against the respondent/authorities, more specifically against the respondent No.2/authority, commanding him to handover the physical possession 2 of the plot of land, particulars of which has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition with a further direction to execute a registered deed of lease in respect of the said plot of land in favour of the writ petition. 2. At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset took me to page No.15 of the instant writ petition, vide copy of the Memo dated 28.05.1984 as claimed to have been issued by the respondent No. 2/authority. It is submitted that under the cover of the said Memo dated 28.05.1984, the land in question was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner, subject to payment of salami and rent which according to the writ petitioner has been duly deposited as would be evident from page Nos. 17 and 18 of the instant writ petition. 3. It is submitted that despite issuance of the said Memo dated 28.05.1984 and despite payment of the salami and rent for one year by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner, the relevant registered deed of lease was not executed in favour of the predecessor- in-interest of the writ petitioner. It is further submitted that in an earlier round of litigation before the Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, in respect of the property in question, initially an order of injunction was granted which was subsequently vacated. 3 4. It is argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that on account of marriage of the writ petitioner in the year 2008, the present writ petitioner was not aware of the factum of such allotment and soon after discovery of the said Memo dated 28.05.1984, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition with the prayers as mentioned in the prayer portion of the instant writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State and its instrumentalities vehemently opposes the prayer as made by the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has chosen a wrong forum for ventilating her grievance in view of the fact the subject matter of dispute is civil in nature and thus the writ petitioner ought to have approached the jurisdictional civil court by filing a suit. 6. It is further argued on behalf of the respondent/State that on perusal of the copy of the Memo dated 28.05.1984 it does not reveal that the respondent No. 2/authority agreed to execute a lease of deed for any particular period, that is to say the said Memo discloses the period of alleged lease. It is argued further that no material has been placed before this Court that possession of the land in question was ever allotted to the writ petitioner. 7. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing learned advocates for the contending parties, 4 it appears to this Court that admittedly an allotment was made by the respondent No. 2/authority in respect of the land in question in favour of the writ petitioner, subject to payment of annual rent and salami. Materials have been placed before this Court that such salami and annual rent has been paid. However, on perusal of the said Memo dated 28.05.1984, it does not transpire as to whether the respondent No. 2 has at all agreed to execute a registered deed of lease in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner for a particular period or not. In other words, there is no material before this Court to substantiate that an agreement was arrived at by and between the writ petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest and the respondent No. 2/authority with regard to execution of a deed of lease for a particular period in respect of the land in question. In view of such, this Court is constrained to hold that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate her contention that the respondent No. 2/authority had agreed to execute a deed of lease for a particular period in respect of land in question. 8. The instant writ petition has another facet. It appears that the Memo in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner regarding allotment of land as involved in the instant writ petition was issued in the year 1984. 5 9. It appears to this Court that the instant writ petition was filed on 24.09.2025. This Court is well aware that there is no period of limitation for filing a writ petition, however, a writ court can decline to entertain a writ petition in the event there occurred unexplained delay and laches in filing the writ petition. 10. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court, it appears that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to explain the delay and laches in filing the instant writ petition. No cogent explanation is forthcoming as to why the writ petitioner is approaching this Court for exercising its high prerogative writ jurisdiction especially when the cause of action arose in the year 1984. 11. In view of the discussion made in above, this Court is constrained to hold that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is thus dismissed. 12. There shall be, however, no order as to cost. 13. 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.)