JUDGMENT : Subhendu Samanta, J. 1. The mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Bela Rani Somaddar (since deceased) was allotted a Plot of Land with core house at Baishnabghata Patuli Area Development Project by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority on August 8, 1985 with approximate area of land of 54 Square Meter with a price of Rs.18,000/-. In terms of the said allotment letter the allottee has paid Rs.3,000/- on 18.09.1985, Rs. 2,500/- on 14.02.1986 and Rs.1,500/- on 25.08.1986. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that after such payment, said Smt. Bela Rani Somaddar wrote a letter to the authority concerned on July 5, 1989 declaring her wish to share the Plot of Land jointly with her elder son, namely, Sri Shyamalranjan Somadder. Thereafter, the original allottee expired in the year 1994. The present petitioner being one of the son of the said allottee; applied to the KMDA so that allotment in his mother’s name cannot be transferred to his name. In terms of his letter regarding transfer of allotment, he was called by the KMDA and directed to submit the affidavit to be sworn by all legal heirs jointly before the 1st Class Judicial Magistrate. Petitioner placed those documents but his prayer for transfer of the said allotment was not entertained. He again made a request to the authority for taking a decision. The authority issued a memo dated August 23, 2013 asking the petitioner to remain present in a hearing for the purpose of- a) non-payment of penalty for delayed payment and, b) transfer of name of owner of Plot. Thereafter, several requests and representations were made to the authority but the authority concerned has not responded any of the representations but had only issued the impugned memo on March 8, 2017 thereby cancelled the allotment in respect of plot in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner being one of the sons of the original allottee had made several representations with the authority. Moreover, the petitioner was attended the meeting as directed by the concerned authority for payment of penalty and for delayed payment and for transfer of the name of the owner of Plot. He attended the meeting but no decision was taken for a long time. After several representations the impugned memo was issued by cancelling the allotment. 4. Moreover, the petitioner was attended the meeting as directed by the concerned authority for payment of penalty and for delayed payment and for transfer of the name of the owner of Plot. He attended the meeting but no decision was taken for a long time. After several representations the impugned memo was issued by cancelling the allotment. 4. He submits that the act and action of the concerned authority is arbitrary. The authority concerned has considered the case of the petitioner to transfer the Plot of Land in the name of the petitioner, but subsequently, they did not consider the same. He further submits that the authority concerned were aware of the fact that the Plot of Land can be transferred in the name of the petitioner who is the one of the son of the original allottee. He further submits that the petitioner by several letters and communications has already established his readiness and willingness to perform the obligations and duties to pay the penalty and dues according to the terms of the allotment letter. However, his prayer was not considered; hence this writ. 5. Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents authority submits that the allotment letter was issued in favour of Smt. Bela Rani Somaddar, mother of the present petitioner which includes specific stipulations; in terms of the stipulations though original allottee has paid three installments but thereafter she could not perform or appear before the concerned authority for execution of the said Deed of Lease. 6. He further submits that the authority concerned has categorically intimated the original allottee to appear before the office of the authority so that the lease agreement may be executed. The original allottee has received all the letters and communications but did not turn up. He submits that as the original allottee has deliberately not followed the terms and a condition of the allotment letter, thus, the allotment has already failed. 7. He further submits that the petitioner is one of the son of the original allottee. The original allottee expired on in the year 1994. The present petitioner has approached the authority after long time in the year 2007 for transfer of allotment in his favour. 7. He further submits that the petitioner is one of the son of the original allottee. The original allottee expired on in the year 1994. The present petitioner has approached the authority after long time in the year 2007 for transfer of allotment in his favour. He was asked to appear before the authority for hearing, the petitioner appeared but the concerned Board has taken decision that where agreement was not executed, the allotment is required to be cancelled. In terms of the decision of the board, the impugned memo was issued. He submits that the right of original allottee was not crystallized. Thus the allotment cannot be transferred in the name of the present petitioner. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties considering the materials herein it appears that the concerned authority has communicated the impugned letter to the present petitioner informing him regarding cancellation of allotment. To understand the issue properly. Let the impugned memo dated March 8, 2017 is set out as under:- “Sir, Whereas it has been verified from records that Plot no.-T-245,LIG category, under Baishnabghata Patuli Area Development Project was allotted to Smt. Smt. Bela Rani Somaddar, vide this letter no. 1641/CMDA/BP/MM/LIG/27, dated-08 th August, 1985. And Whereas it has been further verified that the allottee has failed to pay the rest of amount in time of land value and even the allottee has not shown any interest to pay the outstanding dues for long time after issue of the allotment letter. And Whereas the allottee has failed to take steps for execution of lease deed and physical possession of plot after issuance of the letter, Vide Memo No,- 1762/CMDA/BP/MM/LIG/27 Dated- 23/06/1989. And Whereas for the event of default of payment therefore, for violation of Clause-III(i) of the offer of allotment of Plot No.-T-245, LIG Category is hereby CANCELLED and the land will be resumed in favour of KMDA. The amount paid by the allottee as land cost will be refunded after deduction of 20% as service charge after resumption of the plot in favour of KMDA”. 9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allotment was only cancelled due to the non-payment of the due amount of the lease. He submits that the petitioner was always ready and willing to pay all dues but the authority has not considered any of his representations. 10. 9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allotment was only cancelled due to the non-payment of the due amount of the lease. He submits that the petitioner was always ready and willing to pay all dues but the authority has not considered any of his representations. 10. On the other hand, it is the submissions of the respondents’ authority that the allotment letter has already became nullified due to non action of the original allottee in regards to the stipulations in the allotment letter itself. 11. Let me consider what are the stipulations mentioned in the allotment letter. 12. In the allotment letter the area of the land was approximately 54 Square Meter with a price of Rs. 18,000/-. It was stipulated there that the payment can be made in installments basis. The first installment would be Rs.3,000/- within 45 days from the date of allotment letter. Second installment would be Rs.2,500/- within a period of six months and the third installment would be Rs. 1,500/- within a period of twelve months from the date of payment of first installment. 13. In this particular case the original allotment Smt. Bela Rani Somaddar has paid all three installments. After such payment there is a stipulations how the rest amount has to be paid which mentioned in Clause IV of this allotment letter as follows: “IV. (i) The balance amount after adjusting the aforesaid installments and the initial deposit of Rs.195/- shall be payable in 40 equal quarterly installments of Rs. 384/- with interest @ 7% per annum. The commencement and modalities of payment, of such quarterly installments will be intimated in due course. (ii) Beneficiaries desirous of making payment of the entire balance amount of the installments due, at any subsequent stage, may do so in which case interest will be charged only upto the quarter in which such payment is made. (iii) Any other terms and conditions as may be specified by the Authority from time to time will be binding. 14. It has been stipulated that the balance amount after adjustment of the three installments and the initial deposit of Rs. 195/-towards the registration fee shall be payable in 40 equal quarterly installments of Rs.384/- with interest @ 7% per annum. It was further stipulated that the commencement and modalities of payment of such quarterly installments will be intimated in due course. 195/-towards the registration fee shall be payable in 40 equal quarterly installments of Rs.384/- with interest @ 7% per annum. It was further stipulated that the commencement and modalities of payment of such quarterly installments will be intimated in due course. In this particular case after payment of three installments the authority concerned has intimated allottee through a letter dated June 26, 1987 informing her the decision of the authority to give possession of the core house of the said area on execution of licence agreement and the allottee was directed to collect specimen copy of the licence agreement from the office. The said communication has also specified how the licence agreement has to be executed. 15. The allottee has not responded the communication. Thereafter, the authority concerned again issued a letter on June 23, 1989 directing the authority to appear before them for execution of lease agreement. The original allottee also not responded in respect of the letter but had wrote a letter on July 5, 1989 to the authority intimating them that she wish to share the plot of land jointly with her elder son, namely, Shyamal Ranjan Somadder. The authority concerned has also issued further two communications to the original allottee on 18.09.1989 and 03.07.1992 requesting the original allottee to collect the copy of lease agreement in triplicate from the office. None of those letters were answered by the original allottee. Since then there are silence from the parties and the petitioner after demise of original allottee in the year 1994 has approached the authority in the year 2007 for transfer the allotment in his favour. 16. This being the situations it is very much evident from the allotment letter itself that the balance payment has to be made after execution of the agreement. The original allottee has not appeared before the authority for execution of the agreement. That is the reasons it was not possible for the authority to direct the allottee or any of his heirs regarding the modalities of payment, of quarterly installments. 17. It is the contentions of the petitioner that he always eager to make payment of balance amount but the authority concerned has denied to take proper steps. That is the reasons it was not possible for the authority to direct the allottee or any of his heirs regarding the modalities of payment, of quarterly installments. 17. It is the contentions of the petitioner that he always eager to make payment of balance amount but the authority concerned has denied to take proper steps. In the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to me that the letter of allotment and stipulations thereof not only binding upon the original allottee but also upon the respondents authority who had issued the allotment letter. Terms and conditions of the allotment letter are very specific. In terms of such allotment letter though the original allottee has made three installments but thereafter she could not appear before the authority concerned for execution of agreement. Before execution of agreement there is no stipulation in the allotment letter how the balance amount has to be paid. The payment of balance amount can only be made after the execution of agreement. Consequently, the authority concerned has time and again communicated the original allottee so that the agreement can be executed. In this case, the agreement had not been executed. Moreover, possession was not transferred. 18. At this juncture, though the petitioner has approached the authority with his intention to make payment of balance amount but it was not possible for the concerned MKDA/respondents authority to give consent to the proposal of the present petitioner in terms of the allotment letter. It further appears that the impugned order of cancellation of allotment has specifically mentioned that the allottee has failed to take steps for execution of Lease Deed and physical possession of plot in spite of several issuance of letters. 19. Under the above observation, I find no mala fide, illegalities or arbitrariness on the part of the authority concerned who cancel the allotment in respect of Plot No.-T-245 of LIG Category under B.P. Township 20. Accordingly, I find no merit in the instant writ petition being WPA No. 5197 of 2019 and the same is hereby dismissed and disposed of.