- (1.) In this appeal the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the present respondent is called in question. By that Judgment, the learned Judge set aside the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department whereby he had turned down the application for mutation made by present respondent Shree Ramniwas Goyal Memorial Trust. Few facts would be necessary to understand the controversy.
(2.) On 6.3.1986, a lease was executed by the State Government in favour of one Sri Anil Kumar Bhattacharya of the Government land measuring about five and half cottah for residential purpose. A lease deed was brought into existence for that purpose. In 1992, Sri Bhattacharya made a Will of the above land giving away 50% to one Smt. Geeta Devi Agarwal and 50% to one Smt. Kanta Devi Agarwal. After the demise of Sri Anil Kumar Bhattacharya, the two ladies, viz., Geeta Devi and Kanta Devi obtained probate of the above Will and were in possession thereof. They were of course the joint lessees. In 1995, Geeta Devi and Kanta Devi applied for the mutation in their favour. There was delay in deciding the application, and, therefore, a writ petition has been filed in the High Court wherein the Court directed the authorities to consider the prayer for inutation. On 29.9.1995, the mutation in their favour was refused by the authorities. Therefore, a further writ petition came to be filed being C.O. No. 20041(W) of 1995. That writ petition succeeded and the learned single Judge of this Court directed the authorities by a mandatory and peremptory order to mutate the names of the writ petitioners in the concerned property within a specified period. It is liable to be seen here itself that the said Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8.12.1998 remained unchallenged. In that Judgment the learned single Judge had given a very clear finding that there was nothing wrong if Sri Anil Kumar Bhattacharya, the original lessee had willed away in favour of the two ladies. Before us the objection raised in that case was that there was a transfer made in favour of the two ladies by the original lessee without obtaining the consent or permission from the State Government, and, therefore, the said transfer was void and as such the mutation could not be made. The learned Judge answered this issue by saying that the disposal by will does not amount to a transfer. On that ground the Judgment became final. Ultimately, the concerned authorities executed the order by mutating the property in the name of Geeta Devi and Kanta Devi as joint lessee having 50% undivided interest in the plot. On 8.11.2000, Geeta Devi expired but before that she had executed a Will whereby she had given her undivided share of 50% in favour of the present respondent Trust, Shree Ramniwas Goyal Memorial Trust. It is also an accepted position that a probate to this Will was obtained and the Trust thus became lessee of 50% of the property. On 23.5.2001, Kanta Devi Agarwal executed a registered deed of gift of her 50% undivided share again in favour of the present respondent.
(3.) The Trust thereafter applied for the mutation in its favour by an application dated 7.11.2001. However, finding that there was hardly any reaction on the part of the authorities, another writ petition came to be filed wherein it was directed to consider the said application in accordance with law. In pursuance of that an order came to be passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department whereby the Principal Secretary refused to effect the mutation. Hence a further writ petition came to be filed whereby the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department came to be set aside and a direction was given by the learned single Judge to effect the mutations. It is this order which is assailed in the present appeal.;