23.07.2026 Item No.46 Ct. No. 19 RP WPA/12250/2014 ANJU PAUL VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Anindiya Lahiri, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pranati Das Mr. Subhomoy Paul Mr. Ashish Chakraborty …For Petitioner Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Sr. SC Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Swapnamoy Sarkar Mr. Tapas Kumar Sil …For State 1. The writ petitioner and the respondent/State are represented by their respective counsel. 2. At the very outset Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits before this Court that challenging the judgment and order dated 27.01.2026 as passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MAT 1933 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025, CAN 2 of 2025 (The State of West Bengal & Anr. vs. Dinesh Kumar Goyal & Anr.) wherein an identical question of 2 facts and law are involved, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, a request is made on behalf of the State to adjourn the matter for some time. 3. Such prayer is vehemently opposed by Mr. Lahiri, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner by saying that the said SLP though filed, however, it is still in defective stage. 4. In absence of any order of stay, this Court is not inclined to grant adjournment as prayed for in the instant writ petition. 5. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 17.01.2014 as passed by the respondent no.3 authority whereby and whereunder the said respondent no.3 authority refused to entertain the prayer for mutation as made by the writ petitioner except upon 3 payment of transfer fees pursuant to the notifications dated 22.06.2012 and 02.09.2013. 6. On perusal of the entire pleadings of the instant writ petition and the relevant annexures it appears to this Court that the subject matter as involved in the instant writ petition is identical with WPA 25106 of 2024 (Dinesh Kumar Goyal & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) which came to be disposed of on 29.04.2025 by this Court whereunder this Court held thus:- “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 4 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 sepaate 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. ………………………………………. ……………………………………… 11. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, this 5 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 Plot No.299 in Block-AJ, in Section 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. 6 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.” 7. In course of his submission Mr. Lahiri submits before this Court that challenging the said order dated 29.04.2025 an intra-Court appeal was filed before a Division Bench of this 7 Court, which came to be disposed of on 27.01.2026 whereby and whereunder the Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the said intra-Court appeal affirming the judgment and order dated 29.04.2025 as passed in WPA 25106 of 2024. 8. It, thus, appears to this Court that in an earlier round of litigation though between different parties, in an identical case this Court has taken a view that the respondent no.3 authority cannot deny the prayer of mutation on the strength of two notifications dated 22.06.2012and 02.09.2013. 9. By placing the server copy of the order dated 20.03.2026 as passed by this Court in CPAN 1411 of 2025 it is further submitted by Mr. Lahiri that the order passed by this Court on 29.04.2025 in WPA 25160 of 2024 has been duly complied with by the respondent no.3 herein and, therefore, 8 there cannot be any difficulty on the part of the respondent no.3 authority to take a similar stand in this case also. 10. This Court finds sufficient justification in the submission of Mr. Lahiri. It appears that the facts and circumstances as involved in the instant writ petition is similar to the facts and circumstances of WPA 25160 of 2024 as disposed of on 29.04.2025. 11. Consequently, the respondent no.3 authority is directed to effect mutation in respect of plot of land bearing no.121 in Block-BL in Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, District-North 24 Parganas in the name of the present writ petitioner, namely, Smt. Anju Paul, without insisting upon payment of permission fees. 12. It is, however, made clear that in the event the writ petitioner complies with other formalities regarding mutation, if there be any, such mutation shall have 9 to be effected by the respondent no.3 authority within sixty (60) working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order. 13. Liberty is given to the learned advocate-on-record to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent no.3 authority, who is directed to act on the server copy of the order. 14. With the aforementioned observtions, this writ petition is disposed of. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)