S/L 6 29.04.2025 Court. No. 19 Sourav WPA 25106 of 2024 Dinesh Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pratyush Patwari Mr. Arun Tanti … for the petitioners. Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay … for the State. 1. The affidavit-of-service as filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has submitted a report dated 25.04.2025 as prepared by the respondent no. 2. Let the same be taken on record. 3. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent no. 2 for quashing and/or setting aside and/or rescinding the memo dated 23.04.2024 as issued by the respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 2 had demanded a sum of Rs. 20,40,650/- from Geetika Goyal being the minor daughter of the present two writ petitioners. 4. In course of hearing, Mr. Patwari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos. 53 and 55 of the instant writ petition being copies of two notifications of the Government of West Bengal dated 2 22.06.2012 and 02.09.2013 as published by the Urban Development Department. Attention of this Court is also drawn to page nos. 20 to 28 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the deed of lease dated 16.10.1994 as has been executed between the State of West Bengal (lessor) and one Amiya Kumar Mukherjee (lessee) in respect of Plot No. 299 in Block – AJ, in Sector II of the Bidhannagar in the District of North 24 Parganas. 5. In course of his submission, Mr. Patwari submits before this Court that during the lifetime of the said lessee, Amiya Kumar Mukherjee, he executed his last Will and testament in favour of the said Geetika Goyal which has been duly probated by the learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas on 17.03.2022 in connection with Misc. Probate Case No. 11 of 2022 a copy of which has been annexed at page no. 35. 6. It is submitted that after obtaining probate, the writ petitioner no. 2 being the mother of the said minor Geetika Goyal and the executor to the said probated Will made an application before the respondent no. 2/authority for mutating the name of her minor daughter in respect of the aforesaid plot. It is contended that by issuing the letter dated 23.04.2024, the respondent no. 2/authority most arbitrarily directed the beneficiary of the said Will to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,40,650/- towards permission fees for effecting mutation as prayed for by the writ petitioner no. 2. 3 7. At this juncture, Mr. Patwari places his reliance upon following decisions namely, i) The State of West Bengal & Anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Kapur & Ors. reported in (1997) 2 SCC 387; ii) The judgment and order dated 29.11.2019 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 26882 (W) of 2012 (Mr. Swapan Kumar Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and; iii) The judgment and order dated 13.11.2018 as passed by a co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 2616 (W) of 2018 (Rina Dasgupta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Patwari that from the aforementioned three decisions, it would reveal that in an identical case, the Hon’ble Apex Court came to a finding that under the terms of the lease, there was no prohibition to make a bequest in favour of a stranger by way of testamentary disposition. It is further submitted by Mr. Patwari that in the other two judgments namely, Rina Dasgupta (Supra) and Mr. Swapan Kumar Das (Supra), the two separate co-ordinate Benches of this High Court have came to a finding that the notifications dated 22.06.2012 and 02.09.2013 cannot be given effect to and those have been quashed and it has been held further that the demand for permission fees for effecting mutation is illegal. 4 9. It is submitted by Mr. Patwari that even after passing of the aforementioned two judgments by two separate co- ordinate Benches, the respondent no. 2/authority most illegally and arbitrarily demanded mutation fees of Rs. 20,40,650/- from the writ petitioners’ minor daughter. It is thus submitted that appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners by directing the respondent no. 2 to effect mutation in the name of the writ petitioners’ minor daughter without insisting upon payment of permission fees in terms of the aforementioned two notifications. 10. Per contra, Mr. Bandopadhyay in course of his submission draws attention of this Court to the report dated 25.04.2025 as placed before this Court. It is submitted by Mr. Bandopadhyay that from paragraph no. 11 of the said report, it would reveal that the higher authorities of the department has approved the application for mutation subject to deposit of transfer fees as has been communicated to the writ petitioner vide letter dated 24.03.2024 and according to Mr. Bandopadhyay, the demand of transfer fee has been demanded since it is a case of a Will to a stranger. 11. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this Court finds no merit in the submission as made on behalf of the respondent no. 2 inasmuch as the respondent no. 2 cannot demand any permission fees for effecting mutation in the name of Ms. Geetika Goyal in respect of 5 Plot No. 299 in Block – AJ, in Sector II of the Bidhannagar in the District of North 24 Parganas in terms of the aforementioned two notifications dated 22.06.2012 and 02.09.2013 since in the case of Rina Dasgupta (Supra) and Mr. Swapan Kumar Das (Supra) two separate co-ordinate Benches in two earlier writ petitions have practically quashed the said two notifications and directed the authorities not to insist for payment of transfer fees while effecting mutation. 12. This Court thus finds sufficient merit in the instant writ petition. 13. As a result, the instant writ petition succeeds. 14. Consequently, the respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to effect mutation in respect of Plot No. 299 in Block – AJ, in Sector II of the Bidhannagar in the District of North 24 Parganas in the name of Ms. Geetika Goyal without insisting upon payment of permission fees as claimed under cover of letter dated 23.04.2024. 15. It is, however, made clear that in the event, the writ petitioners comply with the other formalities, if therebe any, regarding mutation, such mutation shall have to be effected by the respondent no. 2 within 60 working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order. 16. Liberty is given to the learned advocate on record of the writ petitioners to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no. 2. 6 17. The respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to act on the server copy of this order. 18. With the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 25106 of 2024 is disposed of. 19. 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.)