Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Item No.4 11.09.2026 Court. No. 236
GB WPA 3553 of 2023
Sri Goutam Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amar Nath Sen, Mr. Shouvik Naskar … for the Petitioner. Mr. Souvik Nandy, Mr. Goutam Acharya … for the State.
1. Affidavit-of-service, filed by the petitioner in Court today, is taken on record.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner (since deceased) purchased a plot of land from one Sunil Kumar Mondal on July 25, 1990 relating to Plot No.352, measuring about 5 decimals under Khatian No.433(LR) of Mouza - Chaitanyapur, P.S. – Sutahata, District – Purba Medinipur vide deed no. 4979 dated July 25, 1990. Subsequently, on July 14, 2006 the said property was transferred to the petitioner vide deed no. 4375.
3. According to the petitioner, on July 25, 1990 the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Sutahata issued a receipt for delivery of the said deed. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Sutahata withheld the said registered document for an indefinite period with a mala fide intention.
4. The father of the petitioner expired on February 16,
2012. After a lapse of 32 years from the date of
2 execution of the said deed, the petitioner made a representation dated November 21, 2022 to the respondents with a request to furnish the deed bearing no. 4979 executed on July 25, 1990.
5. The petitioner by filing this writ petition, which was affirmed on February 9, 2023, has challenged the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering his representation dated November 21,
2022.
6. The writ petition, as it appears from its pleadings, suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. The writ petition also involves several disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a writ proceeding.
7. Under such circumstances, this writ petition stands dismissed.
8. However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from taking steps in accordance with law.
9. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.
(Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)