Heirs seeking entry under a predecessor’s recording order must apply for mutation in the prescribed format.

The petitioners’ predecessor, Prabodh Chandra Pal, and other co-owners sought correction of the records of rights on the basis of a “Nirupan Patra.”

The West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal directed correction in their favour; the High Court later set aside that order, but the Supreme Court allowed a challenge and affirmed the Tribunal’s order.

The petitioners, claiming as Prabodh Chandra Pal’s heirs, then sought recording of their names.

The Tribunal dismissed their original application because they had made a representation rather than filing an application in the prescribed format, while granting them liberty to do so.

By the time of the writ petition, the petitioners had filed the prescribed mutation application and sought its expeditious disposal.

Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the original application, on the ground that the petitioners should file a prescribed mutation application rather than rely on a representation, warranted interference.

Whether the respondent authority should be directed to dispose of the petitioners’ subsequently filed mutation application expeditiously.

The judgment identifies no specific statute, regulation, or independent precedent as the basis for its decision.

It proceeds on the procedural principle that a claim to record heirs’ names through inheritance may be pursued by filing the prescribed mutation application, and that such an application is subject to compliance with the required formalities.

The Tribunal’s earlier direction, affirmed by the Supreme Court, concerned recording the names of Prabodh Chandra Pal and the other co-sharers; the present petitioners claimed as his heirs.

The petitioners argued that recording their names should be treated as compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier direction, rather than as a mutation claim.

The State maintained that, because the petitioners claimed through inheritance, they should use the prescribed mutation procedure.

Since the petitioners had in the meantime filed an application in the prescribed format, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order and instead directed the competent officer to decide that application.

It directed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Nandigram-I, to dispose of the petitioners’ mutation application as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 24 December 2026, and to mutate their names subject to compliance with all due formalities.

There was no order as to costs.