Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.-The petitioner, Bingul Sawaiyan Ho, wanted to lease out his land belonging to Khata No. 187, Plot No. 414, measuring an area 33 decimals of Mauja Gitilpi, Thana No. 580, District West Singhbhum In favour of Indian Oil Corporation, for a period of five years, for running a Petrol Pump (Fuel Retail Outlet).

2. The petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'lOC') entered into the agreement and settled with the terms. Accordingly, the lease deed was prepared. They wanted the lease deed to be registered and for that purpose; they presented the same before the District Sub-Registrar, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa on 21st November, 2006. By Letter No. 177 dated 24th November, 2006, the parties were informed that as the land belongs to a member of Scheduled Tribes, the same can be registered only after previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.

3. The petitioner, at the advice of lOC, had applied for grant of permission on 29th December, 2006 before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa.

4. The Deputy Commissioner did not dispose of the petition dated 29th December, 2006. The petitioner claimed that the objection raised by the District Sub-Registrar by letter dated 24th November, 2006 is contrary to law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. It has been contended that the lease agreement is only for five years and no sanction of the Deputy Commissioner is required. The objection raised by the respondents is wholly frivolous and illegal.

6. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned S.C. (L&C), appearing on behalf of the respondents contested the petitioner's claim and supported the order passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Chaibasa dated 24th November, 2006. Learned counsel submitted that Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (for short 'CNT Act') is a beneficial legislation and its object is to protect the rights of the members of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes against the acquisition of the land from the hands of unscrupulous persons. Section 46(1) of the CNT Act read with its proviso prohibits any transfer of right in land belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes without previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner. It has been contended that by way of lease, there is transfer of right in land, which is not permissible without permission of the Deputy Commissioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order of the District Sub-Registrar, directing the petitioner to obtain sanction of the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of registration of lease for five years is wholly arbitrary and illegal. No permission for registration of lease for a period of five years even in respect of the land belonging to the members of Scheduled Tribes is required. Learned counsel referred to sub-section (1) of Section 4.6 of the CNT Act in support of his contention. He has further submitted that the lease is not transfer of right within the meaning of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 46. Section 46(1) does not provide for any permission for the lease up to five years of any raiyat belonging to the members of Scheduled Tribes. He interpreted the terms 'transfer'. He submitted that for the purpose of these provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 'transfer' has different meanings, as has been held in the different decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.

9. Learned counsel firstly referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandey Orson vs. Ram Chander Sahu & Ors.[AIR 1992 SC 195]. Learned counsel contended that the Apex Court held that it also contemplates a situation where possession has passed from one to another. He further relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Smt. Bina Rani Ghosh vs. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division & Ors. [1985 BL T (Rep.) 279(FB)) and submitted that the word "transfer" used in Sectio