Dismissed¶¶25

Sudip Bhattacharyya v. the State of West Bengal and Others

Calcutta HC2 May 2025WPO/1166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation of government housing flat; probate of Will required before mutation; Karaya Government Housing Estate, Kolkata; unprobated Will of Purnima Bhattacharjee; writ petition dismissed; liberty to reapply after probate; State of West Bengal; testamentary succession; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since no probate has been obtained in respect of the testatrix's last Will and Testament, there is no occasion for respondent no.2 or respondent no.3 to consider the writ petitioner's application for mutation of the flat; the writ petition therefore has no merit and is dismissed. ¶¶25

Sudip Bhattacharyya Vs the State of West Bengal and Others — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

OD-6 WPO/1166/2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶4

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

ORIGINAL SIDE

SUDIP BHATTACHARYYA

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

¶9

BEFORE :

¶10

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN

¶11

Date: 2nd May, 2025.

¶12

Appearance : Mr. Gaurav Purkayastha, Adv. ...for the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Sr. Adv. & AGP. …for Respondent Nos.1 & 3.

¶14

Mr. Dhilan Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Ayan Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Sohini Mukherjee, Adv. ..for Respondent No.2.

¶15

The writ petitioner, the respondent nos.1 and 3 being the State and its functionary and the respondent no.2 are represented by their respective Counsels.

¶16

By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs against the respondents authorities directing them to make necessary changes in respect of the ownership of the flat being flat no.14, Block No. F, Karaya Government Housing Estate, 98, Karaya Road, Police Station - Karaya, Kolkata -700 019 which

¶17

¶18

originally stood in the name of Purnima Bhattacharjee (since deceased), the elder sister of the writ petitioner.

¶19

It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the recorded owner of the said flat, i.e. Purnima Bhattacharjee (since deceased) had died leaving behind a Will whereby and whereunder the aforementioned flat was bequeathed in favour of the writ petitioner who is the brother of the said testatrix.

¶20

It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that despite filing several representations with the functionary of the State, no steps have been taken by the respondents for mutating the name of the writ petitioner in respect of the said flat.

¶21

In course of hearing learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has handed over a copy of the letter dated 14^th January, 2025 as written by the respondent no.3. The said letter dated 14^th January, 2025 along with its annexures is taken on record.

¶22

At this juncture, learned advocate for the respondent-State draws attention of this Court to the third and fourth page of the said letter wherefrom it reveals that under cover of a letter dated 7^th September, 2021 the respondent no.3 requested the writ petitioner to submit certain documents to consider his prayer which includes probated Will of the said testatrix.

¶23

¶24

On being asked, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits before this Court that the writ petitioner is yet to obtain probate in respect of the last Will and Testament as left behind by the writ petitioner’s elder sister, Purnima Bhattacharjee, the testatrix.

¶25

In view of the fact that no probate has yet been obtained in respect of the said last Will and Testament of the said testatrix, this Court considers that there cannot be any occasion either on the part of the respondent no.2 or on the part of the respondent no.3 to consider the application for mutation as made by the writ petitioner in respect of the aforementioned flat. This Court, thus, finds no merit in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

¶26

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

¶27

Before parting with, it is, however, made clear that in the event the writ petitioner obtains probate in respect of the aforementioned Will, he is at liberty to make similar application for mutation with the respondent nos. 2 and 3 authorities and in the event such application is made by the writ petitioner, the respondent nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law forthwith.

¶28

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

¶29

nm

Sudip Bhattacharyya v. the State of West Bengal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudip Bhattacharyya v. the State of West Bengal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanney Khan and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kazi Arindam Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S. Dutta Enterprise and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Subir Ghosh and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sudheshwar Kumar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Surya Narayan Singh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.