Jharkhand High Court
Raghubir Singh Bhatia vs The State Of Jharkhand Thro The ... on 17 December, 2014
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6138 of 2012
XLRI School of Business and Human Resources through
its Secretary, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6139 of 2012
XLRI School of Business and Human Resources through
its Secretary, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6163 of 2012
Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company Ltd.
through its Deputy General Manager (Legal),
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6165 of 2012
2
Premium Residency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata through one
of its Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6176 of 2012
Ashiana Housing Limited through its Manager
(Legal and Land), Adityapur, ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6177 of 2012
Parikh Inn Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012
P & M Infrastructure Ltd. through its authorised
representative, Patliputra, Patna ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms
3
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division,
Chaibasa
5. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
6. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6205 of 2012
Anil Chopra
, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6230 of 2012
Gian Taneja, M/s Super Centre, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6243 of 2012
Hi Tech Heritage Limited through its Director,
Kolkata (West Bengal) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
4
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6257 of 2012
Center For Inner Resources Development, through
its authorised representative, Jamshedpur ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6287 of 2012
1. Jawahar Lal Vig
2. Harish Kumar Vig ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6292 of 2012
1. Raghubir Singh Bhatia
2. Smt. Aruna Taneja ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6305 of 2012
5
1. Jayantilal Badiyani
2. Manoharlal Badiyani
3. Pravin Kr. Badiyani
4. Deepak Badiyani ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6319 of 2012
M/s Kumar Inn Pvt Ltd
., Bistupur,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa,
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6320 of 2012
M/s Bindal Buildon Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa,
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6671 of 2012
M/s Rishiraj Homes Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing
6
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa,
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2012
Kaushal Kanchan Construction Pvt. Ltd. through
its Managing Director, Jamshedpur, ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa,
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur
5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 1244 of 2013
Jamshedpur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. through its
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2013
M/s Steel Strips Wheels Limited through its
General Manager (Manufacturing) and
Authorised Signatory, Jamshedpur ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal
7
Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arjit Mazumdar, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate
(In WPC No. 6163 of 2012)
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arjit Mazumdar, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate
(In WPC No. 6138 & 6139 of 2012)
Mr. Debal Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
(In WPC No. 6176 of 2012)
Ms. Aprajita Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vinay Prakash, Advocate
(In WPC No. 6199 of 2012)
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate
(In all other matters)
For the RespondentState : Mr. Ajit Kumar, AAG
Mr. Saket Upadhyay, J.C. to AAG
Order No: 19 Dated: 17.12.2014
Batch of writ petitions seeking quashing of letters
dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 have been filed by the
8
petitioners claiming themselves sublessees with respect to a part
of land under Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. Since a
common question of law is involved in all the writ petitions, with
the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, all the writ
petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by a
common order. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.
Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral raised an
objection that a copy of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
respondentM/s Tata Steel Limited has been served only yesterday
and therefore, he needs time for filing reply to the same. The
counsel for the petitioners raised serious objection to the prayer
for adjournment and submitted that in view of previous order
passed by this Court, the matter may be heard today. Mr. Binod
Kanth, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent
M/s Tata Steel Limited stated at bar that the rejoinder affidavit
filed by M/s Tata Steel Limited may be ignored.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to issuance
of letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 are summarised thus;
A memorandum of agreement was signed between the Provincial
Government and M/s Tata Steel Limited on 08.07.1909 with
respect to an area of 3564.63 acres of land. About 3564.63 acres
of land was acquired by the erstwhile Government under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, out of which an area of 3509.90 acres was
conveyed to M/s Tata Steel Limited through a deed of conveyance
registered on 19.01.1912. Thereafter, memoranda of agreements
dated 09.07.1918 and 18.10.1919 were also signed between the
parties. After the memoranda of agreements dated 09.07.1918
and 18.10.1919 were signed between the parties, a deed of
conveyance with respect to 12214.74 acres of land was executed
in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited. The total land thus conveyed,
in absolute ownership, in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited was
15,725.05 acres. M/s Tata Steel Limited constructed a Steel Plant
9
and developed a planned township in the vicinity. After the State
Government initiated proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms
Act, 1950, a series of litigations ensued which ultimately ended in
insertion of Sections 7D and 7E in the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
Thereafter, an agreement of lease was executed by the erstwhile
State of Bihar in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited on 04.08.1984
and subsequently, an Indenture of Lease dated 01.08.1985 was
executed in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited. Initially, the lease
was executed for a period of 40 years with effect from
01.01.1956, with a provision for further extension for a period of 30 years, at the option of M/s Tata Steel Limited. After the said period of lease expired on 31.12.1995, M/s Tata Steel Limited exercised its option for renewal by letter dated 03.08.1995. The State of Jharkhand extended the period of lease for another 30 years by executing an Indenture of Lease which was registered on 20.08.2005. By a deeming provision incorporated in Section 7E of the Act of 1950, the leases granted by M/s Tata Steel Limited were recognised as subleases, on payment of fair and equitable rent, on terms and conditions to be settled by the State Government. The Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 also contained a similar provision for sublease of land by M/s Tata Steel Limited in favour of any person, with the prior approval of the lessor, that is, the State Government and a provision is incorporated in Clause 8 of the leasedeed. Vide Resolution dated 06.12.2005, an Appropriate Machinery Committee was set up by the State of Jharkhand for expeditious disposal of cases of sub lease in terms of Cabinet decision dated 19.08.2005. The petitioners submitted applications to M/s Tata Steel Limited to allot and/or sublease a piece of land in the area held by M/s Tata Steel Limited under the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. M/s Tata Steel Limited forwarded the proposals to the Appropriate Machinery Committee and the proposals were considered by the 10 Appropriate Machinery Committee in its meeting held on 09.03.2007. After the approval of the proposals by the Appropriate Machinery Committee, the respondentM/s Tata Steel Limited requested the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to process the proposals for seeking approval of the State Government. The State Government granted its approval on certain terms and conditions and communicated the same to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum and the same has been communicated to the petitioners also. The petitioners were put in possession and agreement for subleases were executed between M/s Tata Steel Limited and some of the petitioners on different dates. The petitioners thereafter, paid rent for each financial year, though under protest, to M/s Tata Steel Limited. The petitioners thereafter, took necessary steps for construction over the land covered under the sublease and in many cases substantial construction has been completed. The necessary details in all the writ petitions are detailed below:
Sl. Case No. Date & Communication Date of Purpose of sub Area Payment No. Letter of of Approval by Possession lease in and amount Approval Deputy (DOP)/ Date of acres paid (in Commissioner Agreement for rupees) sub-Lease
1. W.P.C. No. 3465/Ra 10.10.2008 DOP:31.01.09 Extension of 4.89 Year: 2008-
6138 of dated Educational 09 Amount:
2012 26.09.08 institute 9,53,550.00
2. W.P.C. No. 3281/Ra 26.09.2006 DOP:31.01.09 Extension of 6.80 Year: 2006-
6139 of dated Educational 07 Amount:
2012 18.09.06 institute 13,26,000.00
3. W.P.C. No. 1719/Ra 05.06.2008 DOP:24.06.08 Shopping Mall 5.46 Year: 2008-
6163 of dated DASL: multiples 09 Amount:
2012 15.05.08 14.08.08 55,96,500.00
4. W.P.C. No. 757/Ra 28.02.08 DOP:04.03.08 Hotel 1.96 Year: 2007-
6165 of dated DASL: 08 Amount:
2012 26.02.08 14.06.08 7,47,250.00
5. W.P.C. No. 3858/Ra 01.12.08 DOP:02.01.09 Shopping mall 2.00 Year: 2008-
6176 of dated DASL: multiplex and 09 Amount:
2012 17.11.08 07.10.09 hotel 8,37,500.00
6. W.P.C. No. 3545/Ra 03.11.08 DOP:14.01.09 Convention 1.00 Year: 2008-
6177 of dated DASL: Centre 09 Amount:
2012 16.10.08 02.05.11 4,18,750.00
7. W.P.C. 1844/Ra 19.06.2006 DOP:27.08.07 Multiplex 3.12 Year: 2007-
No.6199 of dated 08 Amount:
2012 08.06.07 31,98,000.00
11
8. W.P.C. No. 3544/Ra 06.11.08 DOP:13.12.08 Banquet hall 0.60 Year: 2008-
6205 of dated 09 Amount:
2012 15.10.08 2,62,500.00
9. W.P.C. 2575/Ra 05.07.08 DOP:27.08.08 Multi Level 0.21 Year: 2008-
No.6230 of dated parking retail and 09 Amount:
2012 27.06.08 hotel 2,15,250.00
10. W.P.C. No. 4239/Ra 16/17.01.08 DOP:10.03.08 Shopping Mall, 2.00 Year: 2007-
6243 of dated multiples and 08 Amount:
2012 31.12.07 hotel 7,62,500.00
11. W.P.C. No. 2560/Ra 14.07.08 DOP:23.07.08 For construction 0.75 Year: 2008-
6257 of dated of religious 09 Amount:
2012 26.06.08 educational 1,14,375.00
institution
12. W.P.C. No. 1959/Ra 12.06.08 DOP:06.09.08 Commercial and 0.104 Year: 2008-
6287 of dated (Note:The parking purpose 09 Amount:
2012 02.06.08 petitioner is in 1,06,600.00
fact in
possession of
the premises
since
25.02.1963
13. W.P.C. 2576/Ra -------- DOP:26.09.08 Commercial and 0.10 Year: 2008-
No.6292 of dated (the petitioner parking purpose 09 Amount:
2012 27.06.08 is in fact in 1,02,500.00
possession of
the premises
since 1962-63)
14. W.P.C. No. 192/Ra 28.02.09 DOP:10.04.09 Commercial and 0.123 Year: 2009-
6305 of dated Parking 10 Amount:
2012 22.01.09 DASL: 1,41,450.00
06.07.09
(The petitioner
is in fact in
possession of
the premises
since
01.02.1964
15. W.P.C. No. 12564/Ra 02.07.2008 DOP:05.08.08 Hotel 0.60 Year: 2008-
6319 of dated 09 Amount:
2012 26.06.08 2,51,250.00
16. W.P.C. No. 2577/Ra 05.07.08 DOP:08.09.08 Commercial 2.00 Year: 2008-
6320 of dated Complex 09 Amount:
2012 27.6.08 8,37,500.00
17. W.P.C. 3142/Ra 14.08.08 DOP:17.11.08 Multiplex 1.75 Year: 2008-
No.6671 of dated Shopping Mall 09 Amount:
2012 01.08.08 7,32,812.00
18. WPC No. 2026/Ra 21.06.08 DOP:29.08.08 Multiplex-cum- 3.64 Year: 2008-
6681 of dated IT Park 09
2012 11.06.08 Amount:
15,24,250.00
19. W.P.C. No. 2595/Ra 05.07.08 DOP:27.08.08 Cold Storage 0.62 Year: 2008-
1244 of dated DASL: 09 Amount:
2013 28.06.08 16.06.09 2,59,625.00
20. W.P.C. No. 2530/Ra 14.08.06 DOP:12.02.07 Factory 10.09 Year: 2006-
1909 of dated DASL: 07 Amount:
2013 03.08.06 14.06.08 29,63,938.00
3. In the counteraffidavit, the respondentState of Jharkhand took similar stand in all the cases stating that for 12 examining the irregularity in the matter of subleases to the petitioners and others and for examining the loss of Government revenue, the Government got the matter enquired into by Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand who submitted his report indicating certain irregularity and loss of revenue. In view of the report of the Member, Board of Revenue, the Government directed vide letter dated 17.09.2012 to ensure that the geographical condition of the lands in question does not change. M/s Tata Steel Limited vide letter dated 22.09.2012, sent a compliance report to the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated that the recommendation for subleases is under enquiry and therefore, the State Government has rightly issued directions for stoppage of construction work.
4. A rejoinder to the counteraffidavit of the respondentState of Jharkhand has been filed by the petitioner(s) denying that the State of Jharkhand is the paramount owner of the land in question. It is stated that the respondentState of Jharkhand in its capacity as a lessor is bound by the procedure laid down in the leasedeed with regard to grant of subleases.
The report dated 12.10.2010 is illegal and without jurisdiction and any action taken in pursuance thereof also must be held illegal and without jurisdiction. In absence of any statutory provisions or the rules, an anonymous complain cannot be made basis for conducting an enquiry. Even if it is assumed that there has been some irregularity in the matter of grant of subleases, that by itself does not make the grant of approval in favour of the petitioners, illegal or unlawful. The plea that the State Government suffered revenue loss is baseless and unfounded as the rent sought to be realised from each sublessee is in terms of Government's own policy decision. Sections 7D and 7E contemplate grant of sublease for industrial, commercial, residential or for such other purposes on payment of fair and 13 equitable rent. The action of the State Government is not only arbitrary, harsh and disproportionate, it follows civil consequences including severe financial losses, without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
5. A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent M/s Tata Steel Limited stating that the leasedeed recognised that, "for the development of the town and for the supply and maintenance of services, aforesaid and diverse civic amenities to the town of Jamshedpur, the lessee incurred a huge expenditure and the burden of a large deficit after the recovery made from the recipients of the services" and therefore, the State thought it necessary in public interest that, "the development and services should continue to be undertaken and rendered by the lessee as hitherto at its cost and mode of management and realisation of charges for services so rendered in the manner followed so far". In Clause 17 of the Indenture of Lease, the services of municipal nature has been assigned to the respondentM/s Tata Steel Limited. M/s Tata Steel Limited enjoys discretionary right to propose further subletting of the vacant land to various categories of utilisation, in consonance with all round development of the town. After the last renewal, M/s Tata Steel Limited revisited the requirement of town and accordingly, forwarded proposals for subleases for setting up malls and multiplexes which were approved by the State Government. The report dated 12.10.2010 is full of infirmities and illegalities. The findings, conclusions and suggestions in report dated 12.10.2010 are based on nonexistent facts and assumptions. Letters dated 22.09.2012 and other 56 letters, all dated 13.10.2012 as well as letter dated 28.10.2012 were issued to M/s Tata Steel Limited and the petitioners to which M/s Tata Steel Limited gave a comprehensive reply on different issues raised in the said letters. Again, vide letter dated 03.11.2012, M/s Tata Steel Limited has 14 furnished separate replies to all 56 letters.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
7. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in W.P.(C) No. 6163 of 2012, after tracing the history how Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 came to be executed, submits that the bone of contention in the present batch of writ petitions is power of M/s Tata Steel Limited to grant subleases, a power incorporated in Clause 8 of the said Indenture of Lease. Stressing on the words "necessary" and "any person", the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the right conferred on M/s Tata Steel Limited to sublease any portion of the vacant land is subject to prior approval of the State Government which, in turn, is required to settle the terms of the sublease only. When M/s Tata Steel Limited with a view to cater the present day need of the residents of Jamshedpur decided to part with a portion of land to the petitioners and the proposals for subleases in favour of the petitioners were considered by a 5Member Appropriate Machinery Committee and the proposal of the Appropriate Machinery Committee was approved by the State Government, the State Government is precluded from issuing directions for seizure of the construction activities, without issuing showcause notice to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 were issued 6 years after the allotments were proposed and about 4 years after the same were approved by the State Government and in the meantime, the petitioners raised substantial construction by investing huge funds and thus, the least what was required in the matter was to issue a showcause notice to the petitioners.
8. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerXLRI School of Business and Human Resources in W.P.(C) No. 6138 of 2012 submits that a 15 lessee/sublessee has a right in law to enjoy the property to the exclusion of all others, during the term of the lease. Recounting the events leading to putting the petitioners in possession, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that on a mere figment of imagination of the alleged irregularity, the directions issued under letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 cannot be issued by the State Government. Contending that the action of the respondentState of Jharkhand is completely arbitrary, it is submitted that even in contractual matters, the State is not relieved of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the agreement for sublease has been executed between M/s Tata Steel Limited and the petitioners and thus, the respondentauthorities cannot restrain the petitioners from exercising their leasehold rights. It is further submitted that the impugned communications suffer from nonapplication of mind in as much as, individual cases were not examined to ascertain whether the proposal/approval for sub lease is tainted by extraneous considerations or misrepresentation.
9. Mr. Debal Banerjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerAshiana Housing and Finance India Limited in W.P.(C) No. 6176 of 2012 submitted that the petitioner has also raised substantial construction and the direction not to continue further construction has caused serious injury to the petitioner.
10. Ms. Aparajita Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerP & N Infrastructure in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012, submits that the petitioner has taken huge loan for construction of multiplexes and it is incurring huge interest thereon. Due to prohibition in interim order dated 07.03.2013 not to create any third party interest, the petitioner is not able to enter into an agreement to sale, so as to realise a part of the loan amount from the intending purchasers. The direction contained in the 16 impugned letters prohibiting further construction has resulted in huge financial loss to the petitioner on account of mounting interest on the loan amount. She has further submitted that agreement for sublease in favour of the petitioner is a registered instrument and it has the effect of a sublease, in law and thus, the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of its lessor which is the lessee under the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. Since no action in terms of Clause 24 of the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 has been taken, the respondentState of Jharkhand is not justified in issuing letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012.
11. As against the above, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral refers to various clauses of Indenture of Lease dated 20.8.2005 and submits that in the leasedeed itself, several categories of land have been specified and the purpose for which different categories of land can be utilised has also been provided however, the proposals for grant of sublease in favour of the petitioners which has been forwarded, are not in consonance with the object and purpose mentioned in the Indenture of Lease. Referring to Clause 8, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submitted that under Clause 8, M/s Tata Steel Limited can make proposal in respect of "vacant lands" only and any such proposal is subject to the prior approval of the State Government. Upon enquiry, when certain irregularities were detected, the impugned letters were issued to ensure that the geographical condition of the lands in question is maintained. It is further submitted that the State is the paramount owner of the leased land and approval for the sublease has to be accorded by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department. The approval communicated to the petitioners is not the Government decision in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the State Government has every right to review its own decision in the interest of the State. Since the allocation of land in 17 favour of the petitioners appears to be contrary to the terms of Indenture of Lease, before taking any action in the matter, the respondentState of Jharkhand has rightly directed the petitioners not to raise further constructions. It is further submitted that the right of the State, being the paramount owner, to conduct enquiry in the matter for ascertaining the purpose for which proposal for grant of sublease has been made, cannot be questioned.
12. In reply, on behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the right of the State to conduct an enquiry in the matter is, in fact, not disputed by the petitioners. However, the manner in which the impugned orders contained in letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 have been issued, affecting the valuable rights of the petitioners, has been questioned in the present proceeding.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
14. From the affidavits filed in the present proceeding, I gather that there is no dispute in so far as, the recommendation of Appropriate Machinery Committee forwarded to the State Government, is concerned. The learned AAG has submitted that the communication of the approval of the State Government for sublease in favour of the petitioners has been disputed by the respondentState of Jharkhand, on the ground that the said communication was not the decision of the Government. However, I find that it is not in dispute that the petitioners were put in possession and in several cases, substantial construction has been raised. The direction not to carry further construction would necessarily followed civil consequences to the petitioners. In "Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.", (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "civil consequence" covers infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil 18 liberties, material deprivations and nonpecuniary damages also. It is well settled as a fundamental rule of law that, no decision should be taken which will affect the right of a person without first being informed of the case and giving an opportunity of hearing. In "State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei", reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269, it has been held that even an administrative order or decision, in matters involving civil consequences, must be made consistent with rules of natural justice. In "Canara Bank & Ors. Vs. Debasis Das & Ors.", reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus,
14. The expressions "natural justice" and "legal justice" do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence.
15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasijudicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled................Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time...................".
15. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have taken a specific plea that without affording opportunity of hearing, the impugned letters were issued by the respondentState of Jharkhand. In the rejoinder affidavit to the counteraffidavit filed by the State, the plea of violation of rules of natural justice has again been reiterated by the petitioners. To a pointed query, 19 whether any action in terms of Clause 24 of the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 has been taken by the State or not, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submitted that the matter is still at the stage of enquiry and though, he sought information from the concerned authorities, immediately after the last hearing of the cases, he has received no instructions in the matter. However, it is contended that the petitioners have no right in law and therefore, they are not entitled for grant of hearing. It is further contended that there is no sublease existing in their favour and therefore, the contention that they are entitled for peaceful enjoyment of the property till the currency of the sub leases, is liable to be rejected.
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 subleases are concerned, the same cannot be challenged by the petitioners however, there is no dispute that the direction to maintain statusquo 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 respondentM/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 AdvocateGeneral 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 20 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/sublessee.
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 cooperate 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.
18. The writ petitions are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
19. I.A. No. 769 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6163 of 2012, I.A. No. 653 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6176 of 2012, I.A. No. 6633 of 2013 & I.A. No. 4198 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012, I.A. No. 3192 of 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 6305 of 2012 and I.A. No. 756 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6320 of 2012 stand disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/A.F.R.