Jayanta Kumar Biawas, J. - (1.) The petitioners took out this writ petition dated July 4th, 2002 alleging that for transferring title to the plot of land possession whereof was given to them as back as December 19th, 1987, the second respondent, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, and its officials were not executing the lease-deed.
(2.) The development authority and its officials have filed an opposition in which they have the questioned genuineness of two documents (Annexures P-3 and P-5) produced by the petitioners with their writ petition. The case of the development authority and its officials as made out in the opposition is principally regarding the genuineness of those two documents. The reply case of the petitioners is that the plot in question was actually allotted to the first petitioner and requisite amount towards premium was paid by the petitioners and received by the development authority has, however, not been denied in the opposition. In view of the dispute regarding the genuineness of the two documents, order dated May 6th, 2005 was made in the case permitting the development authority to file a supplementary opposition. But no supplementary opposition has been tiled, and no one appears for it and its officials as well.
(3.) In view of the above-noted situation, it seems to me that it will be just and proper to dispose of the writ petition making an order directing the deputy secretary (acquisition) of the development authority to look into the matter for taking necessary action. Why the lease-deed was not executed or is not to be executed should be disclosed by the development authority. Nothing has been said in the opposition regarding that aspect. By letter dated January 10th, 1986 the administrative officer (acquisition) of the development authority directed the first petitioner to see the deputy secretary (acquisition) in connection with delivery of possession of the land earmarked for the first petitioner. The petitioners have produced the possession certificate dated December 19th, 1987 to show that possession of the plot in question was given to them after demarcation. This is why, I think it will be appropriate to direct the deputy secretary (acquisition) to examine the matter for taking necessary action.;