Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
Ashiana Housing Limited Through Sri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 29 September, 2023
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.
Itc Limited vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 July, 2011
"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
Section 105 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 110 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Raval & Co vs K. C. Ramachandran & Ors on 11 December, 1973
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.