Jharkhand High Court
P & M Infrastructures Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 April, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:12651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1348 of 2017
P & M Infrastructures Limited, A company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 201-C&D,
Abhishek, Off New Link Road, Andheri (West), P.O. and P.S.
Andheri (West), Mumbai- 00053 (Maharashtra), through its
Authorised Representative, namely, Sunil Agrawal, Son of Shri
Jeevan Lal Agrawal, resident of B-605, Vishnu Shivam Tower,
Thakur Village, Kandivali East, P.O. and P.S. Kandivali, District
Mumbai- 400101 (Maharashtra) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and
Land Reforms Department, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi 834004, District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
2. Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi 834 004, District
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
3. Commissioner, Kolhan Division, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District-
West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
4. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S.
Sakchi, town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing Director, having its
registered office at 24, Homi Modi Street, P.O. and P.S. Fort Mumbai,
Maharashtra and having its work at Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S.
Bistupur, District East Singhbhum.
6. Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, through its Special Officer,
having its office at Sakchi, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi,
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate : Mr. K. Hari, Advocate : Mr. Chaitanya Vijay, Advocate : Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, AC to AAG-IA For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the Resp.- JNAC : Mr. Vijay Kumar Ray, Advocate
---
CAV on 12th February 2025 Pronounced on 28.04.2025 1 2025:JHHC:12651
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), and/or direction including a writ of declaration, declaring that the respondent-State of Jharkhand cannot interfere in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful enjoyment of right, title and interest over the property sub-leased in favour of the petitioner, having an area of 3.12 Acres, situated in Plot No. 952, 966 and 973(P) in Ward No.4 of Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) at Jamshedpur;
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s), order(s), and/or direction including a writ of declaration, declaring that alleged pendency of the enquiry in the matter of sub-
lease against the petitioner by the State Government, cannot in any manner effect the grant of Statutory Clearances and/or administrative approvals required in law by the petitioner for making its multiplex-cum-mall functional over its sub-leased property, after sub-lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner;
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s), order(s), and/or direction being consequential directions to the respondent-State of Jharkhand and to respondent-Tata Steel Ltd to complete necessary formalities relating to sub- leased land allotted in favour of the petitioner including execution of the formal sublease, acceptance of lease rent etc. from the petitioner in respect of sub-leased land, having an area of 3.12 Acres, situated in Plot No. 952, 966 and 973(P) in Ward No.4 of Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee( JNAC) at Jamshedpur;
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/order/direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. After placing the sequence of events, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 529 of 2019 and analogous case wherein a direction has been issued to the respondents to execute registered sub-lease in favour of the writ petitioner of that case who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner of the present case. It has been submitted that an appeal was also filed against the aforesaid judgement which has been dismissed though only on the point of 2 2025:JHHC:12651 limitation and it has also been observed that the plea of res-judicata will not be available with respect to other cases, if any.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the report of the enquiry committee was not available in aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2019 and in present case, there is a report which has been annexed along with the supplementary counter affidavit. The learned counsel has submitted that the primary objection of the State is that the Tata Steel Limited (the lessee under the State) had handed over the property involved in this case to the petitioner as sub-lessee without any registered document of sub-lease.
4. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter dated 23.06.2006 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition and has submitted that as per the said letter itself the entire payment has been remitted and a direction was issued to hand over the possession of the property to the petitioner so that there is no loss of revenue. The learned counsel has also submitted that subsequently the allotted land was changed and additional amount was quantified and directed to be deposited. For this purpose, another letter dated 30th June, 2007 was issued. The said letter is contained in Annexure-9 of the writ petition. He submits that ultimately the possession of the property was handed over vide Annexure-10. He submitted that reading of the aforesaid documents would reveal that the possession of the property involved in this case was handed over to the petitioner in terms of the directions issued as contained in letter dated 23.06.2006 read with letter dated 30.06.2007.
5. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is a clear indication in the letter dated 23.06.2006 to hand over the possession so that there is no loss of revenue. He has submitted that by the act of Tata steel Limited (the respondent no. 5 herein), appropriate steps were taken to hand over the possession and thereby the respondent no. 5 has taken care of the loss of revenue.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 has supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 3 2025:JHHC:12651 petitioner although no counter affidavit has been filed by Tata steel Limited.
7. The order was reserved on 12.02.2025 and the parties were directed to file written submissions but none of the parties have filed written submission and therefore the case has to be decided on the basis of arguments advanced in the open court and materials available on record. The petitioner had earlier filed a note which was primarily in the form of list of dates.
Findings of this Court.
8. It is not in dispute that huge tract of land in the district of East Singhbhum was acquired for Tata Steel Limited and memorandum of agreement dated 08.07.1909 was entered into between the government and Tata Steel Limited which was followed by deed of conveyance. An agreement for lease was entered into between M/s Tata Steel Limited and the State Government on 04.08.1984 registered on 09.11.1984 (agreement of lease) and ultimately, indenture of lease dated 01.08.1985 was registered on 06.08.1985 in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited and the aforesaid agreement for lease was made part of the indenture of lease. The lease was granted for a period of 40 years with effect from 01.01.1956 with a further provision of extension of 30 years. Accordingly, the period under original indenture of lease came to an end on 31.12.1995 and prior to expiry of the lease period, Tata Steel Limited applied for renewal vide letter dated 03.08.1995 and after bifurcation of the State of Bihar, an indenture of lease dated 20.08.2005 was executed with effect from 01.01.1996 for a period of 30 years which is scheduled to expire on 31.12.2025.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that vide resolution dated 06.12.2005, Appropriate Machinery Committee was set-up by the State of Jharkhand for the purposes of grant of sub-leases by Tata Steel Limited. As per the scheme of working of Appropriate Machinery Committee, final decision on its recommendation was to be taken by the Revenue Minister, Government of Jharkhand and the 4 2025:JHHC:12651 committee was constituted primarily for expeditious disposal of cases of sub-lease in terms of the Cabinet decision dated 19.08.2005.
10. The proposal for grant of sub-lease to the petitioner for construction of 3 to 4 screen multiplex along with food courts and shopping malls of international standards was considered and approved by the Appropriate Machinery Committee in its meeting dated 07.01.2006 (Annexure-3). Consequently, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by his proposal on 01.02.2006 recommended for allotment of 3.12 acres of land to the petitioner at Circuit House Area, ward No. 6 of Jamshedpur on sub- lease at commercial rate fixing the annual commercial rent at 5% of the total value of land at Rs. 12,16,800/-.
11. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 23.06.2006 directed Tata Steel Limited to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner as the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs. 29,81,160/- as annual commercial rent and cess and ultimately, the plot was handed over to the petitioner by Tata Steel Limited on 05.08.2006 vide Annexure-8.
12. However, the petitioner had requested Tata Steel Limited for re- location of plot/site in view of height restriction imposed by Airport Authority of India on the allotted site and the request was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum on 27.02.2007 and the proposal for relocation of plot to Bistupur Area was approved by the Appropriate Machinery Committee. Ultimately, vide order dated 08.06.2007 the State Government granted approval for relocation of the sub-lease area to Bistupur to the extent of 3.12 acres. A statement to this effect has been made by the writ petitioner in paragraph 18 to the writ petition, but the order no. 1844 dated 08.06.2007 issued by the State Government granting approval for relocation has not been filed by the writ petitioner along with the writ petition. However, this fact is not in dispute. Another order no. 469 dated 30.06.2007 (Annexure-9) was issued whereby the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur directed the petitioner to deposit the annual 5 2025:JHHC:12651 commercial rent of Rs. 25,58,400/- and road cess of Rs. 6,36,600/- and accordingly, the differential amount of Rs. 2,16,840/- was deposited by the petitioner.
13. The Tata Steel Limited issued letter dated 27.08.2007 and offered to sub lease 3.12 acres of land in Bistupur Lease Area to the petitioner as per the order of the State Government and accordingly, handed over the possession of the land to the petitioner on 27.08.2007. The certificate of delivery of possession has been annexed as Annexure- 10 to the writ petition.
14. Ultimately, an agreement of lease was duly registered between the petitioner and Tata Steel Limited on 07.03.2008 (Annexure-11) for aforesaid 3.12 acres of land in ward no. 4, JNAC, Bistupur which was followed by required approval for construction over the plot by all the concerned authorities , that is, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Department of Fire and Airport Authority of India followed by issuance of a building permit for construction of multiplex-cum-mall on 02.01.2008 (Annexure-12) and at no point of time, any objection was ever raised by any of the authorities including the respondents.
15. The problem arose when letter no. 3058 dated 17.09.2012 was issued by Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand to Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, communicating that in the light of certain irregularities committed in the matter of grant of sub-lease and also in the light of report submitted by the then Member, Board of Revenue, the State Government has taken a decision to inter alia order the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum to maintain status quo in the construction over the sub leased plots.
16. The said letter dated 17.09.2012 was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum for information and necessary action vide communication dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure-16) which, in turn, led to issuance of letter dated 21.09.2012 by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur directing the Managing Director of Tata Steel Limited to ensure stoppage of construction 6 2025:JHHC:12651 work on the plots allotted to the sub lessees and maintain status quo and ultimately, the decision was communicated vide letter dated 22.09.2012 to the petitioner also, being in possession of some such plots of sub-lease.
17. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid letter no. 3058 dated 17.09.2012 and the aforesaid consequential letter dated 21.09.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012.
18. Other similar writ petitions were filed before this Court against similar orders passed by respondent no. 1 directing to maintain status quo and stoppage of construction work with respect to the sub-lease plots under M/s Tata Steel Limited. The batch of writ petitions were heard by a Bench of this Court and vide order dated 07.03.2013, an interim order was passed permitting the petitioners to carry out further construction in respect of their sub leased area subject to undertaking that the construction activity would be carried out at their own cost and risk and that petitioners would not claim any equity on that account.
19. It is further case of the petitioner that the interim order dated 07.03.2013 was initially not extended to the present petitioner and subsequently when the petitioner filed the required undertaking before this Court by virtue of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3306 of 2013, this Court allowed the interim order dated 07.03.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 and analogous cases in favour of the present petitioner also vide order dated 21.06.2013 [Annexure- 18].
20. The aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 along with the batch of writ petitions was finally heard and vide order dated 17.12.2014 [Annexure- 20], the High Court left it open to the State Government to conduct an enquiry in the matter and to complete the same by 31.03.2015 by giving individual notice to the various petitioners. The findings/directions of the Hon'ble court while disposing of the writ petitions are quoted as under: -
72025:JHHC:12651 "16. I am of the opinion that in so far as, the right of the State Government to conduct an enquiry in the matter and examine the proposal for grant of sub-leases are concerned, the same cannot be challenged by the petitioners however, there is no dispute that the direction to maintain status-quo and thus, not to raise further construction, has been issued without hearing the petitioners. Though certain apprehensions were expressed on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent-M/s Tata Steel Limited asserted that it is the company which is the absolute owner of the lands in question, the broad consensus among the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while permitting the State to conduct an enquiry in the matter, a time schedule may be prescribed and the petitioners also be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate-General submits that during the period the enquiry is to be completed, if the petitioners are permitted to create third party rights, it may lead to serious complications in future and therefore, the interim order dated 07.03.2013 may be extended till the conclusion of the enquiry. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand is misplaced and founded on ignorance of settled principles of law. In the first place, there is no restriction in the impugned letters dated 17.09.2012 and
21.09.2012 prohibiting the petitioners from creating third party rights. It is also well settled that an alienation of right, title or interest in the property would be binding only to the extent of right conferred upon the lessee/sub-lessee.
17. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that, if the State Government decides to conduct an enquiry in the matter, the same must be completed on or before 31.03.2015 and the petitioners would be given individual notices. It is further ordered that the petitioners and M/s Tata Steel Limited would furnish all required informations, if any, sought by the State Government and they would co-operate in expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. In case, the State Government takes an adverse decision, the same would be communicated to the petitioners with a copy of the enquiry report."
21. The stipulated period for completion of enquiry, as fixed by the High Court, was 31st March 2015 but the State of Jharkhand sought extension of time and this Court, vide order dated 08.04.2015 passed in C.M.P. No. 118 of 2015 and other analogous cases, extended the 8 2025:JHHC:12651 time for completion of enquiry upto 30th June 2015 and it was made clear that no further extension of time will be granted. It has been stated in paragraph 40 of the writ petition that no adverse order whatsoever was communicated to the petitioner till the filing of the writ petition.
22. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the enquiry was not completed in spite of extension of time and no adverse decision was communicated to the petitioner. It is their further case that the refusal of the State to grant the requisite permission and to withhold the statutory permission is an attempt to overreach the orders passed by this Court as the construction was continued by virtue of the orders passed by this Court and the order to maintain status quo which was issued by the respondents was impliedly set- aside. It is the case of the petitioner that the sub-lease of the petitioner was never cancelled and the petitioner has invested more than 125 crores and consequently, the petitioner has prayed for reliefs as mentioned above. However, the records of the case reveal that the agreement for sub-lease between the petitioner and Tata Steel Limited was registered and not the sub-lease.
23. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2019 (Ashiana Housing Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others) with W.P.(C) No. 2697 of 2019 (Praikh Inn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others) and has submitted that in the said case, both the writ petitions were allowed and Tata Steel Limited was directed to execute registered sub-lease in favour of the writ petitioners for the land in question regarding which consent was earlier accorded by the Appropriate Machinery Committee and Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee was directed to accord approval of the revised building plan as per rule and in terms of the sub-lease. It was also observed that status quo order communicated by the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the sub-lease will not come in the way for execution of the sub-lease.
92025:JHHC:12651
24. So far as the building permit is concerned, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012, the petitioner had filed an application dated 02.02.2013 before the respondent no. 5 requesting for renewal/amendment of the Building Permit and offered to pay additional fees. As per paragraph 41 of the writ petition, the petitioner had completed the construction to the extent of 90% and it was in the stage of making the mall functional. Since the petitioner had filed application for amendment of its building plan and no step was taken by the respondent - Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, the petitioner was compelled to file another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5952 of 2015 seeking approval of the building plan/ permission. However, the petitioner was served with letter no. 28.12.2015 issued by respondent no. 5 directing the petitioner to stop construction in respect of sub-leased land and another letter bearing no. 183 dated 25.01.2016 was issued by respondent no. 5 stating that application of the petitioner for approval of its building plan would be considered only after allotment of sub- lease made in favour of the petitioner is restored consequent upon completion of enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner that since letters dated 28.12.2015 and 25.01.2016 (annexure- 25 and 26 respectively) were issued during the pendency of the aforesaid writ application being W.P.(C) No. 5952 of 2015, the petitioner was advised to withdraw the writ petition for filing a composite writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner filed interlocutory application for withdrawal of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5952 of 2015 which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure- 27) and a liberty was granted to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition. Consequently, fresh writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1095 of 2016 was filed challenging the aforesaid letter dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure-26) in which notice was issued for filing counter-affidavit vide order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure-28). In the meantime, the petitioner claims to have submitted an amount of Rs. 12,40,000/- for renewal of Municipal Drawing.
102025:JHHC:12651
25. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 and analogous cases an enquiry committee was constituted by the State of Jharkhand and a show-cause notice dated 03.03.2015 was issued to the petitioner which was duly replied by the petitioner vide its letter dated 07.03.2015[ Annexure- 21]. The show cause notice dated 03.03.2015 has not been placed on record but its content is apparent from the reply filed by the writ petitioner in letter dated 07.03.2015[ Annexure- 21]. The list of queries raised by the state in the show cause is as under: -
Query No.1: Why the petitioner did not enter into a lease agreement/deed within a period of 3 (Three) months after allotment of Land to them under Order No. 1844/ra, dated 08th June, 2007 issued by Revenue and Land Reforms Department of Government of Jharkhand on recommendation of appropriate machinery committee (AMC). Why approval of government should not be considered as cancelled, as the petitioner did not enter into a legally valid Sub-Lease agreement within stipulated time.
Query No.2: Why did the petitioner not pay an adequate amount of stamp duty and Registration fee on execution and registration of agreement to lease dated 07th March 2008. Query No.3: In terms of clause 6 and 8 of Indenture of Lease dated 20th August, 2005, sublease on vacant land categorized under Schedule E should have been allotted for the purpose of shopping mall and Multiplexes, why the petitioner was allotted land under Schedule A instead of Schedule E of Indenture of Lease.
Query No. 4 : Details about Third Part Interest.
26. In reply, with respect to the aforesaid query no.1, it was stated by the petitioner that immediately on allotment of land, petitioner deposited the annual commercial rent along with road cess and upon such deposit, the petitioner was handed over the possession of land on 27th August 2007 by Tata Steel Limited; Tata Steel Limited informed 11 2025:JHHC:12651 the petitioner that the matter of fixation of rent was pending before the State Government and it was not possible for them to execute the document of lease and until the mater of fixation of rent is complete, lease cannot be registered as it will have direct impact on the computation of stamp duty. It was further stated by the petitioner in the reply that some of the sub-lessees moved the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1181 of 2009 and W.P.(C) No. 2160 of 2009 challenging the arbitrary fixation of rent and cess by the State Government and the High Court passed an interim order dated 21st May 2009 in the said cases staying the operation of enhanced rent so fixed by the State Government. It was also stated that the writ petitioner had also filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2655 of 2009 which was tagged along with other writ petitions and the High Court extended the interim orders covering the writ petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29th June 2010. In the reply, a reference was also made to another order dated 15.02.2011 granting continuation of interim relief.
It was asserted in the reply that the issue regarding lease rent was sub- judice before the High Court and therefore, the lease deed could not be executed as the quantum of rent will have a direct impact with the computation of Stamp duty and Registration charges. In the reply, the petitioner also revealed that instead of lease deed they have entered into an agreement to lease dated 07.03.2008 which was registered and was deemed to be effective from 27.08.2007 i.e., the date of handing over of possession which was well within three months from the date of grant of approval of the State Government. It was asserted in the reply that the State Government had always treated the petitioner as a sub-lessee and the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 was proceeded on the basis that there existed a valid lease in favour of the petitioner. It was stated in the reply that the petitioner was always ready and willing to execute the lease deed. With respect to query no. 2, it was stated by the petitioner in the reply that the petitioner has executed a valid agreement to lease on stamp paper of Rs. 500/- and also paid Registration Fee of Rs. 1060/- on 12 2025:JHHC:12651 07.03.2007 while registering the agreement of lease and no notice was received for payment of differential stamp duty or registration fee. The petitioner assured that any additional payment for Stamp duty and Registration fee along with interest, if applicable, will be paid. It was also stated in the reply that there was a legally valid agreement of lease and as per clause 2.2 of the agreement, it would remain valid till the execution and registration of the deed of lease or 31 st December 2025, whichever is earlier.
So far as query no. 3 is concerned, it was asserted in the reply that the entire process of allotment of land was coordinated by Tata Steel Limited with the Appropriate Machinery Committee and the details regarding schedule of land available for sub-lease were completely internal in nature. It was asserted that the petitioner should not be made accountable to prove as to why the land in schedule-A was allotted to the petitioner instead of schedule-E land. It was further stated that clause -8 of the indenture of lease between State Government and Tata Steel Limited did not restrict subleasing to only Appendix-E land. A reference was made to the opinion of the then Advocate General according to whom clause 8 of the indenture of lease between State Government and Tata Steel Limited protects the right of Tata Steel Limited in proposing sub-lease over vacant lands which could be available in any schedule or appendix.
27. With respect to query no. 4, it was stated that although the petitioner has issued Letters of Intent and taken advance for creation of further sub-lease to third parties, but none of the Letters of Intent were registered as the same was supposed to be done on receipt of complete payment and handing over of possession. It was stated that the sub-leases were entered into by the petitioner based on the rights given to the petitioner under clause 3.5 of the agreement for lease dated 07th March 2008 entered into between the petitioner and Tata Steel Limited. It was also informed that the petitioner has created mortgage over the land in favour of the State Bank of India who has 13 2025:JHHC:12651 extended term loan for execution of the project and such mortgage was done after prior approval of Tata Steel Limited.
28. Further query was raised in connection with creation of 3rd party rights vide letters dated 19th March 2015 and 26th March 2015, but those letters have not been filed along with the writ petition. However, the reply to such queries has been filed by the writ petitioner vide letter dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure-22) which reveals that the query was in connection with the creation of 3 rd party rights. The response of the petitioner was that they have not created any 3 rd party rights on the developed structure as on that date. However, they have entered into initial basic understanding with some retailers for letting out/sub-leasing of the structure to them. It was asserted that the petitioner has neither entered into any firm agreement nor created any 3rd party right on any structure. It was also asserted in the reply of the petitioner that as per the agreement of lease dated 07.03.2008 entered into by the petitioner with Tata Steel Limited the petitioner was given the right to sub-lease developed structure/built up area. It was also stated that the petitioner had created mortgage on the land in favour of the State Bank of India who had given a term loan of Rs. 40 crores for execution of project and the said mortgage was created with prior approval of Tata Steel Limited and the said mortgage was done before the aforesaid interim order dated 07.03.2013 was passed by the High Court of Jharkhand.
29. Thus, this court finds that the petitioner had itself expressed inability in the matter of execution of the registered deed of sub-lease as the lease rent was not finalized and the matter regarding claim of lease rent by the State was itself sub-judice before this court in W.P.(C) No. 1181 of 2009 and other cases including the case filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 2655 of 2009 wherein certain interim order is said to have been passed as mentioned in the reply filed by the petitioner to the query raised by the enquiry committee but such interim order also has not been placed before this court. The status of the W.P.(C) No. 1181 of 2009 and other cases including the case filed 14 2025:JHHC:12651 by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 2655 of 2009, as available in the system, reveals that the said writ petitions are pending and on last couple of dates the matters were simply adjourned.
30. A counter-affidavit dated 21.04.2017 was filed by the respondent no. 6 stating that the said respondent did not process the application for approval/renewal of the building permit of the petitioner strictly following the rules of Jamshedpur Building Bye- laws, 2007 / Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 as the letter dated 25.01.2016 was issued to the petitioner mentioning that the validity of the building permit had expired, still the petitioner was continuing the construction activity and the petitioner was asked to submit relevant papers regarding re-allotment of sub-lease if already done by the concerned authority. It was also indicated that some legal opinion was sought which was awaited. The said respondent asserted that the letter dated 06.02.2017 was rightly issued to the petitioner to stop construction work within 24 hours as it came to the knowledge of the officials of the said respondent that construction work was carried on without approval of building permit. Another affidavit dated 11.05.2017 was filed by the respondent no. 6 making similar averments.
31. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed counter-affidavit dated 04.04.2024 stating that the lease to M/s Tata Steel Limited was renewed on 01.01.1996 for a period of 30 years and was registered on 20.08.2005. The 1st indenture of lease dated 01.08.1985 contained a provision relating to grant of lease by Tata Steel Limited in favour of any person with prior approval of the lessor i.e., the State Government. Consequently, an Appropriate Machinery Committee was set-up by the State of Jharkhand vide Resolution No. 3874 dated 06.12.2005 and in the said resolution, it was mentioned that final decision on the recommendation of the Appropriate Machinery Committee will be taken by the Revenue Minister, Government of Jharkhand and the proposal of the petitioner was considered and approved by the Appropriate Machinery Committee and was 15 2025:JHHC:12651 forwarded to the Department of Revenue for approval. Thereafter, the State Government granted 3.12 acres of land to the petitioner and directed to deposit certain amount and thereafter, the Tata Steel Limited was also directed to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, Tata Steel Limited handed over possession of sub-leased plots to the petitioner. An agreement to lease was entered into between the petitioner and Tata Steel Limited for 3.12 acres of land in Bistupur on 07.03.2008. However, a letter dated 22.09.2012 was issued to the petitioner by Tata Steel Limited enclosing therewith letter dated 21.09.2012 of Deputy Commissioner, letter dated 18.09.2012 of the Commissioner and the letter dated 17.09.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department for maintaining status quo in the light of certain irregularities committed in the matter of grant of sub-lease and also in the light of the report submitted by the Member, Board of Revenue. This resulted in filing of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 challenging the aforesaid letters. Further construction was permitted to the petitioners vide interim order dated 07.03.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 at their own cost and risk and that the petitioner would not claim any equity on that account. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 was decided on 17.12.2014 and it was left open to the State Government to conduct an enquiry into the matter and complete the same by 31.03.2015. Enquiry committee was constituted and time for completion of the enquiry was extended pursuant to order dated 08.04.2015 passed in C.M.P. No. 118 of 2015 upto 30.06.2015 and the enquiry report dated 21.05.2015 has been annexed along with the counter-affidavit. In the counter- affidavit it has been alleged that there was violation of provisions of Transfer of Property Act, Indian Registration Act as well as Bihar Land Reforms Act which defeats the very object of the said acts. It was found that Tata Steel Limited had not conferred the sub-lease to the petitioner through registered sub-lease agreement and that the petitioner had mortgaged the imaginary and fictitious sub-lease rights 16 2025:JHHC:12651 and taken approval of loan amount from State Bank of India to the extent of 40 crores.
32. It has also been alleged in the aforesaid counter-affidavit that the petitioner had created several 3rd party rights by entering into several Memorandum of Understandings, Letter of Intent and creation of tenancy without any approval or permission for transferring the sub-lease rights. It was also asserted that sub-lease was not in force as registered sub-lease agreement was never executed in the prescribed time and without executing the registered sub-lease agreement, Tata Steel Limited had delivered the possession to the petitioner and consequently, the enquiry committee came to the conclusion that the sub-lease was not alive and was not in force. It was further asserted that several irregularities were committed during the process of sub- lease.
33. The enquiry report has been placed on record through the counter-affidavit and the conclusions have been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent State from the enquiry report. A reference was also made in the enquiry report to the permission for sub-lease issued by the Revenue Department of the State of Jharkhand dated 08.06.2007 and as per clause XI thereof, the lease agreement was to be executed within 3 months, failing which the lease would stand cancelled and it was observed in the enquiry report that Tata Steel Limited and the petitioner have violated the terms of the approval. It was also stated in the enquiry report that the registered sub-lease agreement was to be executed in accordance with section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, but Tata Steel Limited executed the deed on 07.03.2008 on stamp paper of Rs. 500/-. Further, in clause 1.3 of the lease agreement, it was also mentioned that "After final resolution by the State Government and/or the competent court of law of the issue of quantum of rent and cess, the deed of Sub-lease shall be executed by and between the parties on payment by the Sub-lessee of appropriate stamp duty and registration charges as would be applicable then." Clause 2.2 indicated that "The agreement shall remain valid till 17 2025:JHHC:12651 execution and registration of the Deed of Sub-lease or 31.12.2025 whichever is earlier." The enquiry report mentions that as per clause 1.3 and 2.2, the agreement revealed that sub-lease agreement will be executed in future and consequently, Tata Steel Limited did not enter into a registered sub-lease deed which was in violation of section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
34. Further violation has been indicated in the enquiry report by referring to clause 3.5 of the agreement for lease wherein it was mentioned that the sub-lessee shall only sub-lease portion of the built- up area, initially upto the period of their sub-lease i.e. 31.12.2025. It was also indicated in clause 3.11 that the sub-lessee shall utilize the land fully within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of that agreement and as per clause 4.1.2 of the agreement for lease, the building and other structure and infrastructure would belong to the sub-lessee and Tata Steel Limited shall not claim any ownership or beneficial interest therein by virtue of the agreement over the land described in the schedule. The enquiry report revealed that Tata Steel Limited delivered possession to the petitioner without entering into registered sub-lease agreement in which ultimately construction was made. It was also alleged that the petitioner entered into the agreement of lease dated 07.03.2008 on stamp paper of Rs.500/- with Tata Steel Limited and also entered into equitable mortgage of the property to State Bank of India on the basis of which State Bank of India sanctioned 40 crores of cash credit on 08.02.2011 and Tata Steel Limited in the un-registered agreement of lease dated 07.03.2008 vide clause 3.5, allowed the sub-lessee to transfer rights.
35. It was the case of the respondents that without there being transfer of sub-lease rights to the petitioner, further transfer was made to 3rd parties by creating interest in their favour and such action was violative of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was mentioned that in letter of approval of sub-lease dated 08.06.2007, there was no mention that the petitioner could mortgage the sub-lease 18 2025:JHHC:12651 rights and consequently, the sub-lessee was not given any prior permission to transfer their sub-lease rights. The enquiry report concluded that Tata Steel Limited violated the provisions of sections 105, 107 and 110 of the Transfer of Property Act and delivered possession to the petitioner. It has been concluded that the sub-lease in favour of the petitioner never came into existence and otherwise also, the sub-lease was not existing as registered sub-lease was not executed within the stipulated time and therefore, allocation of land to the petitioner cannot be said to be sub-lease.
36. Further, violation of the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act has also been indicated in the enquiry report and it has further been mentioned that the provision was made for payment of rent to Tata Steel Limited instead of depositing the rent in government treasury and Tata Steel Limited also collected 5% additional amount in the name of collection charges and consequently, Tata Steel Limited, without taking any permission from the State Government, has acted as an intermediary between the State and the sub-lessee which was in violation of Bihar Land Reforms Act. It has also been stated in the enquiry report that the land was allotted without payment of salami and consequently, there was no gain of the State.
37. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court dated 03.05.2024, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 vide affidavit dated 27.06.2024 bringing on record the various orders passed by this Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to Tata lease and sub lease which may be relevant for the purposes of the present case. Order dated 03.05.2024 is quoted as under:
"1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. During the course of hearing, it transpired that certain orders passed in connection with Tata Lease and Sub-leases executed by Tata Steel Limited are required to be place for consideration in the present case.
3. Respondent no. 1 is directed to file a supplementary counter affidavit in this case bringing on record various orders passed by this Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court 19 2025:JHHC:12651 relating to Tata Lease and Sub-lease which may be relevant for the purposes of the present case.
4. Affidavit should clearly indicate as to why similar relief as has been given in W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2019 with W.P.(C) No. 2697 of 2019 be not extended to the petitioner. This Court is informed that the said judgment has attained finality.
5. Let an affidavit be filed by 10th June 2024.
6. Post this case on 14th June 2024."
38. It has been brought on record that the common order dated 07.03.2013 and 17.12.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6138 of 2012 and analogous cases and order dated 21.06.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 are the relevant orders. It has also been indicated that the State was in the process of filing Letters Patent Appeal against the common order dated 29.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No. 2697 of 2019 wherein this Court had directed Tata Steel Limited to execute registered sub-lease in favour of the petitioners of that case for the land in question regarding which consent had earlier been accorded by the Appropriate Machinery Committee and Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee was directed to accord approval of the revised building plan as per rule and in terms of the sub-lease. The said Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 394 of 2024 has been decided vide order dated 18.12.2024 wherein the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, it has also been observed in the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench that dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) shall not operate as res-judicata in other connected matters.
39. In the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2019 (Ashiana Housing Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others) with W.P.(C) No. 2697 of 2019 (Praikh Inn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others), the foundational facts have been mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 4 which reveals that both the said petitioners had obtained permission for sub-lease, but the Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to a decision of the State 20 2025:JHHC:12651 Government, had passed orders of status-quo and consequently, the execution of registered sub-lease was stalled. Being aggrieved by non- execution of sub-lease, the petitioners of the said cases filed the writ petitions and common question was involved in both the cases. In the said case also, the annual rent was duly paid to Tata Steel Limited. A reference was made to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6138 of 2012 and connected matters and the fact was noted by the learned writ Court that State Government decided to conduct an enquiry in the matter which was to be completed by 31.03.2015 and the time for completion was extended till 30.06.2015 by the order of the Court. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum had issued a letter dated 12.01.2016 to Tata Steel Limited informing them that enquiry was complete and the report was submitted to the State Government which as per the aforesaid order was under consideration of the Government. It was argued by the State that possession of the land was given without executing the registered sub-lease agreement and without complying with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the transfer of lease hold rights was without the permission of the State Government and without execution of registered sub-lease agreement.
40. The Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid case found that the main question which fell for consideration was, can the State Government cancel or withdraw the consent for sub-lease already granted under clause-8 of the agreement in the absence of any allegation of fraud or undue influence. Clause 8 of the sub-lease was quoted in paragraph 30 of the said judgment which is as under:
"Clause 8- That should a lessee find it necessary in future to sub-lease any portion of the vacant lease in favour of any person, such allotment will be made with the prior approval of the lessor on terms to be settled. An Appropriate Machinery Committee has been set up by the lessor in consultation with the lessee for expeditious disposal of such cases of sublease."21
2025:JHHC:12651
41. The Co-ordinate Bench referred to the enquiry reports and observed that they were not relevant and it dealt with the proposed mechanism granting consent, but it did not refer to any undue influence or fraud in the process of consent already granted by competent authorities in terms of the agreement for the sub-lease. The Court also recorded in paragraph 33 of the said judgment that, "There are reference in the counter affidavit of other reports, but the enquiry under the orders of this Court is under submission before the Government, and further extension of time by six months has been sought for. Prayer for extension is devoid of any merit and is made after eight years only to procrastinate the matter and is accordingly rejected." The Co-ordinate Bench held that argument of loss of huge revenue in the grant of sub-lease by the State which had only a reversionary interest was flawed to the core and misconceived as reversionary interest is limited by its very nature to retake possession of property if the conditions were not fulfilled. Lessor cannot raise any financial claim beyond the terms of lease and when the sub-lease is granted as per the term of lease, the paramount owner cannot claim anything more than what is provided under the terms of the lease. The Court also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (ITC Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others, (2011) 7 SCC 493 and recorded as under:
"36.Further, arguments like the absence of approval by the Cabinet to such long-term settlement, and reconstitution of the Appropriate Committees are issues beyond the term of lease and post litum in nature and therefore, it cannot be a ground to withdraw approval which has been duly granted by the said Committee. State is not at impunity to review the accomplished state of affairs like the lease granted to Tata Steel Ltd. and the terms thereunder. It has been held in ITC Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others, (2011) 7 SCC 493
30. A lease governed exclusively by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("the TP Act", for short) could be cancelled only by filing a civil suit for its 22 2025:JHHC:12651 cancellation or for a declaration that it is illegal, null and void and for the consequential relief of deliver back of possession. Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction grants such a decree, the lease will continue to be effective and binding. Unilateral cancellation of a registered lease deed by the lessor will neither terminate the lease nor entitle a lessor to seek possession."
42. The Court ultimately recorded the findings in paragraphs 39 to 41 of its judgment which is quoted as under:
"39. From the above, it is apparent that the arguments that have been advanced that the consent to the said sub-lease was granted in derogation to the Rules of executive business or that permission of the Cabinet was not taken, or that the said sub- lease caused loss to the State, are not acceptable and is rejected. Fact of the matter remains that Tata Steel Ltd. is the lease holder and the primary consideration for the lease was not a premium in rupees and an annual rent, but there were larger considerations of industrialization, regional development and employment to the people. The Development and history of Tatanagar is well known. Therefore, construing it as a Clause in the lease, a reasonable construction will mean that so long a sub lessee is not an undesirable person or entity, the Government cannot take these hyper technical pleas.
40. Fact remains that the Appropriate Committee was constituted to give effect to the provision of sub-lease under Clause-8 by Circular No.3874/RA- 06/12/05. The said Committee has given due consent. There are no allegations of undue influence or fraud. After the consent was accorded the petitioners entered into the agreement for sub-lease with Tata Steel Ltd. (R-4), and as discussed above acted upon the said consent by performing different acts of depositing requisite fees, getting clearance from the Fire Fighting services etc. Now the State authorities cannot turn around and resile from the term of lease and the consent already given under it for sub- lease. To permit such a course will be against the settled principles of certainty in contractual matters. It has been held in, Raval & Co. v. K.G. Ramachandran and Others, (1974) 1 SCC 424 that terms of the registered lease cannot be varied in view of Section 92 of the Evidence Act.
Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, (2010) 1 SCC 512
5. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigations by Governments and statutory authorities are 23 2025:JHHC:12651 on the increase. Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and high-handed manner.
6. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contention to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf.
41. There is no merit in the arguments that agreement for sub- lease is not registered and therefore the possession could not have been handed over on its basis. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, mandates registration of lease and not for an agreement to enter into a lease.
Under the circumstance and for the reasons discussed above, both the Writ Petitions succeed. Tata Steel Ltd. is directed to execute registered sublease in favour of the petitioners for the land in question regarding which consent had earlier been accorded by the Appropriate Machinery Committee, and further the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee is directed to accord approval of the revised Building Plan as per rule and in terms of the said sublease. Needless to say that the order of status quo communicated by the Deputy Commissioner, with regard to the sub-lease will not come in the way for the execution of the sub-lease."
43. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State dated 04.04.2024, it has been specifically stated in paragraph 18 that the enquiry committee has conducted the enquiry and completed the same after considering the show-cause reply and thereafter, the enquiry report has been sent to the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 738(B) dated 21.05.2015. However, there is nothing on record to indicate as to what ultimate decision has been taken by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand pursuant to the letter dated 21.05.2015. In the order dated 07.03.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6138 of 2012 and analogous cases read with order dated 17.12.2014, this Court had observed that so far as right of the State Government to 24 2025:JHHC:12651 conduct an enquiry in the matter and examine the proposal for grant of sub-lease are concerned, the same cannot be challenged by the petitioners and without entering into the merit of the writ petitions, the writ petitions were disposed of observing that if the State Government decides to conduct an enquiry in the matter, the same must be completed on or before 31.03.2015 and the petitioners of the said cases were to be given individual notices and it was also directed that in case the State Government takes an adverse decision, the same would be communicated to the petitioners with a copy of the enquiry report.
44. The records of the case reveal that the enquiry report has been forwarded to the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand and no final decision has been taken by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department of the State of Jharkhand and consequently, any adverse order of the State Government arising out of the enquiry has not been communicated to the petitioner so far. Thus, pendency of consideration of the enquiry report cannot be a ground for not registering the sub-lease deed in favour of the petitioner when seen in the light of the judgement relied upon by the petitioner passed in WP(C) No. 529 of 2019 and another analogous case.
45. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 529 of 2019 and another analogous case so far as entitlement of the petitioner to get registration of the sub-lease deed is concerned. However, there is a rider to such an entitlement. This is because of the reasons that admittedly, there is a dispute regarding the rate of sub-lease rent and related issues which is pending consideration before this court in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the present petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 2655 of 2009 and it was the pendency of the said writ petition which, as per the reply filed by the writ petitioner before the enquiry committee, had compelled the writ petitioner and Tata Steel Limited to enter into registered agreement for 25 2025:JHHC:12651 lease dated 07.03.2008 instead of registration of sub-lease deed and this was so in view of the fact that unless lease rent is finalised, the stamp duty, registration fee etc. cannot be ascertained for the purposes of registration of the Sub-lease deed. Thus, the matter regarding quantum of sub-lease rent and the connected issues pending in the aforesaid writ petition are required to be taken to a logical end before execution of the registered sub-lease deed.
Once the sub-lease deed is registered, there can be no impediment in approval of the building plan/ permit subject to satisfaction of other conditions as per applicable rules.
46. Certainly, in terms of the judgement passed in WPC No. 529 of 2019 and another analogous case (supra), the order of status quo communicated by the Deputy Commissioner with regards to sub-lease will not come in the way for execution of the sub-lease deed.
47. Even as per the case of the petitioner the initial period of sub- lease deed to be entered between the petitioner and Tata Steel Limited would expire on 31.12.2025 as admittedly the registered lease between the State and Tata Steel Limited is also expiring on 31.12.2025.
48. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Tata Steel Limited to execute the registered sub-lease deed in favour of the petitioner for the land in question regarding which consent had earlier been accorded by the Appropriate Machinery Committee of the State Government immediately upon finalisation of the sub-lease rent and other liabilities which is subject matter of the aforesaid batch of writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the present petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 2655 of 2009. Once the sub-lease deed is registered, there can be no impediment in approval of the building plan/ permit subject to satisfaction of other conditions as per applicable rules.
Further, in terms of the judgement passed in WP(C) No. 529 of 2019 and another analogous case, the order of status quo communicated by the Deputy Commissioner with regards to sub-lease will not come in the way of execution and registration of the sub-lease deed.
262025:JHHC:12651
49. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
50. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj/AFR 27