Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated May 24, 2003 passed by the respondent No. 1 [the Chairman of Diamond Harbour Municipality, 24 Parganas (South)] rejecting the petitioner's application for mutating his name in the records of the Diamond Harbour Municipality (hereinafter stated as "the Municipality") in respect of the plots of land at village Muragacha Mouza - Roynagar, P.S. Diamond Harbour, in Khatian No. 1, Dag No. 3 (sub -plot E in English and Bengali letter in G) R.S. Plot No. 3/573, 3/574, 3/575, R.S. Khatian No. 276 (hereinafter stated as "the said plots of land").
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that by a registered conveyance, his maternal uncle Late Hari Prasad Basu, purchased the said plots of land together with other plots of land. The name of Late Hari Prasad Basu is duly recorded in the records of the Land Revenue Authorities as the owner of the said plots of land. After the death of the Hari Prasad Basu the said plots of land, including some other plots of land, devolved upon his only daughter Bani Basu, since deceased. On August 02, 1999, the said Bani Basu died leaving behind a Will dated July 29, 1999 bequeathing her various assets and properties, including the said plots of land in favour of the petitioner. On September 15, 2000 the said Will of late Bani Basu was duly probated by this Court in its original jurisdiction (at pages 25 to 45A of the petition). On the strength of the probate granted by this Court in respect of the said Will of late Bani Basu, the petitioner sought to obtain the mutation application form for the Municipality for mutating his name, in respect of the said plots of land, but he was unsuccessful. Thus, the petitioner through his advocate, submitted an application to the respondent No. 1 for mutating his name, in the records of the Municipality, in respect of the said plots of land. The respondent No. 1, being Chairman of the Municipality, however, did not consider the application and as such the petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 6570(W) of 2003, before this Court against the respondent No. 1 and other officers of the Municipality. In the said writ petition an association, namely Bani Basu Sishu Uddyan Samity (the respondent No. 3 in this petition), intervened and sought to raise objection to the petitioner's claim for mutation. By an order dated May 07, 2003 a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition W.P. 6570(W) of 2003 by impleading the said association as the respondent No. 5 and directing the respondent No. 1 (being the Chairman in council of the Municipality) to consider and dispose of the application for mutation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order. By the said order dated May 07, 2003, even the date of hearing by the respondent No. 1 was fixed on May 24, 2003. It appears that on May 24, 2003, the respondent No. 1, Chairman, held a hearing which was attended by the advocate of the petitioner and the advocates of the respondent No. 3 who opposed the petitioner's said prayer for mutation. After hearing the respective advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated May 07, 2003.
(3.) IT is the said Bani Basu Smiriti Shishu Uddyan who raised the objection to the mutation of the name of the petitioner in respect of the said plots of land both in the land revenue records of the B.L. & L.R.O. and the records of the said Municipality. By the impugned order, the respondent No. 1 upheld all the grounds of objection raised by them. The said association and its Chairman and Vice Chairman have been impleaded in this writ petition as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. On March 12, 2015 when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, none appeared to represent any of the respondents and I directed the petitioner to serve a notice on all the respondents that the writ petition will be taken up for hearing on March 20, 2015. The petitioner complied with the said direction and from the tracking report of the postal department, it is evident that the respondent No. 3 association refused to accept the said notice but the respondent No. 4, the Chairman of the respondent No. 3 association received the said notice. However, on March 20, 2015, Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait, the learned Advocate appeared to represent the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Chairman and Vice -Chairman of the Municipality but none appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.;