Disposed¶26

Shyamal Kumar Bhaduri v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Dec 2025WPLRT/165/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation refused; plots vested in State; vesting procedure; vesting order; vesting proceeding; certified copies; authenticated copies handed over; affidavit-in-opposition not filed; liberty to challenge vesting before appropriate forum; WPLRT 163 of 2025; WPLRT 164 of 2025; WPLRT 165 of 2025; Malay Dutta; Bablu Kumar Dhar; Shyamal Kumar Bhaduri; State of West Bengal; Calcutta High Court; writ disposed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State-respondents to furnish certified copies of the vesting orders and all necessary connected papers to each petitioner upon application, preferably within a month; liberty to each petitioner to challenge the vesting procedure before the appropriate forum; authenticated copies of the relevant papers handed over forthwith in court; no order as to costs. ¶26

Shyamal Kumar Bhaduri Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether, the mutation applications having been refused because the plots have vested in the State, the State-respondents should furnish the petitioners certified copies of the vesting orders and the papers connected with such vesting. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Since the State has come up with the particulars of the vesting, WPLRT 163 of 2025, WPLRT 164 of 2025 and WPLRT 165 of 2025 stand disposed of with a direction on the State-respondents to furnish certified copies of the vesting orders and all necessary papers in connection with such vesting, if applied for by the petitioner, within a reasonable period, preferably within a month from such application being made.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Each petitioner is given liberty to challenge the vesting procedure before the appropriate forum, if otherwise entitled in law to do so; upon any such challenge being filed, the said forum shall decide the same in accordance with law upon giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶27

Key takeaways

There will be no order as to costs.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petitions (WPLRT 163, 164 and 165 of 2025, High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side) by Malay Dutta, Bablu Kumar Dhar and Shyamal Kumar Bhaduri respectively against the State of West Bengal and others, decided on 01.12.2025 by Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J., with Supratim Bhattacharya, J. concurring. The petitioners' applications for mutation had been refused on the ground that the plots-in-question had vested in the State; although an affidavit-in-opposition had been directed, none had been filed. After extensive search the State traced the vesting particulars and undertook to furnish certified copies of the vesting proceeding and vesting order. The Court accordingly disposed of all three writ petitions, directing the State-respondents to furnish certified copies of the vesting orders and all necessary connected papers upon application by the petitioner, preferably within a month thereof; recorded that authenticated copies of the relevant papers were handed over in court there and then; gave each petitioner liberty to challenge the vesting procedure before the appropriate forum, such forum to decide any challenge in accordance with law after hearing all concerned; and made no order as to costs.

¶1

Form No. J(2)

¶2

In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

WPLRT 163 of 2025

Malay Dutta

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

With

WPLRT 164 of 2025

Bablu Kumar Dhar

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others

¶13

With

¶14

WPLRT 165 of 2025

¶15

Shyamal Kumar Bhaduri

¶16

Vs.

¶17

The State of West Bengal and others

¶18

For the petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar Das, Mr. Jiaul Haque For the State in WPLRT 163 of 2025 : Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. Sambuddha Dutta For the State in WPLRT 164 of 2025 : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Sr. Govt. Adv., Ms. Priyamvada Singh

¶19

¶20

For the State in WPLRT 165 of 2025	: Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ramchandra Guchaait
Heard on	: 01.12.2025
Judgment on	: 01.12.2025

¶21

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

¶22

An adjournment is sought by the petitioners.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the State in all the matters submit before the Court that although there was a direction for filing affidavit-in-opposition, no such affidavit-in-opposition has been prepared in the backdrop of the facts. It is submitted that the limited conspectus of the writ petitions is that the writ petitioners applied for mutation but the same was refused on the ground that the plots-inquestion have vested in the State. After extensive search, the instructing officers of the State have informed learned counsel for the State that the relevant particulars regarding the vesting procedure have now been traced out. As such, the State is ready to furnish the necessary certified copies regarding the vesting proceeding and the vesting order to the petitioner in each of the matters.

¶24

In such view of the matter, since the State has come up with the particulars of the vesting, we dispose of WPLRT 163 of 2025, WPLRT 164 of 2025 and WPLRT 165 of 2025 with a direction on the Staterespondents to furnish certified copies of the vesting orders as well as all necessary papers in connection with such vesting, if applied for by

¶25

¶26

the petitioner in each of the matters, within a reasonable period, preferably within a month from such application being made.

¶27

Liberty is given to the petitioner in each of the matters to challenge such vesting procedure, if otherwise entitled in law to do so, before the appropriate forum. Upon such challenge being filed, if at all, the said forum shall decide the same in accordance with law upon giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶28

There will be no order as to costs.

¶29

It is hereby recorded that the authenticated copies of the relevant papers are handed over by learned counsel for the State here and now to the learned Advocate for the petitioner in each of the matters.

¶30

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶31

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶32

I agree.

¶33

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

¶34

A-13to15 TN

Shyamal Kumar Bhaduri v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamal Kumar Bhaduri v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Swaraj Patra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ujjwal Roy and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

W. B. Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs Aeroheight Apart. Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Pushparani Jana and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar Paik @ Anil Paik and Ors.

Malay Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.