JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved about the malpractice happened in the office of respondent no. 2 in interpolating and manipulating registered deed of gift, which was earlier executed on 20th July, 1976 (being No. 13489 of 1976). Allegedly in the original deed, Donee No. 1 received 0.66 satak whereas Donees No. 2 and 3 received .33 satak of land from amongst the entire .99 satak of land comprised in Dag No. 43/880 in Mouza-Samsernagar, District-North 24 Parganas. 2. Allegedly that, in the certified copy of the said deed, the entitlement of the respective Donees has been stated to be otherwise i.e. .66 satak of land is to be granted to Donee No. 3 whereas .33 satak of land is to be granted to Donee Nos. 2 and 3. 3. It is pointed out by Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners that in this way by a serious malpractice done in the office of the respondent no. 2, a registered document has been manipulated and respondents have illegally interfered with the f rights of the writ petitioners as to the landed property granted in their favour by dint of such deed of gift. 4. Mr. Roy has also stated that for redressal of grievance of his clients as well as seeking necessary action on the part of the concerned respondent, a demand justice notice was sent to it, vide letter dated 4th March, 2020 but to no avail whatsoever. 5. Mr. Roy has submitted for an appropriate order to be passed in this writ petition. 6. Ms. Parekh, learned advocate is appearing for the private respondents. She has, however, challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the Writ Court to entertain the grievance of the writ petitioners. 7. No one is representing the concerned State respondents/authorities. Record reveals that in spite of direction given, none of the respondents has preferred to file any affidavit-in-opposition. 8. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is being taken up for adjudication in absence of the said respondents. 9. The copy of the original gift deed as well as its certified copy, as mentioned above, are annexed with the writ petition. 10. The anomaly as pointed out by Mr. Roy on behalf of the writ petitioner is apparent thereform. 11. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is being taken up for adjudication in absence of the said respondents. 9. The copy of the original gift deed as well as its certified copy, as mentioned above, are annexed with the writ petition. 10. The anomaly as pointed out by Mr. Roy on behalf of the writ petitioner is apparent thereform. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the direction upon the respondent no. 2, to consider and dispose of the writ petitioners’ grievance vide letter dated 4th March, 2020, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners as well as any other person/persons as it may deem fit and proper. A reasoned order shall be passed, after hearing. 12. The exercise as above by the respondent no. 2 shall be concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 13. The writ petition being WPA No. 914 of 2021 is disposed of. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.