ORDER :

Ravi Ranjan, J.

1 This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellants– Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority and its office bearers assailing the decision dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.4151 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No.4157 of 2016.

This would be pertinent to note it here that the said two writ petitions were filed by the writ petitioners M/s. Narrow Structures Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rajgir Petro Chemical Ltd for a direction to the RIADA authorities to regularize the lease deed in their favour with respect to two sets of industrial plots since for both the sets, two Certificates were issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and those Certificates were put to e-auction sale as the properties were leased out to the original allottees through two lease deeds by Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘RIADA’). Hence, the aforesaid writ petitions were filed by the auction purchaser for regularizing the leasehold in its favour on identical terms and conditions which were there in the original lease deed. W.P. (C) No.4151 of 2016 was filed for regularization of lease deed for the land measuring 2 acrers appertaining to Plot Nos.352P, 360P, 394P, 395P, 396P, 397P and 398P of Tupudana Industrial Area, Ranchi for which a Certificate was issued and e-auctioned vide order passed in R.P. Case No.03 of 2012 dated 02.03.2015.

The 2nd writ petition, i.e., W.P. (C) No.4157 of 2016 was filed for regularization of lease deed in favour of the writ petitioner for the land measuring 2.69 acres of Plot Nos.33P, 34, 35 & 36 of the Tupudana Industrial Area, Ranchi, for which in R.P. Case No.02 of 2012 the petitioner purchased the property through e-auction sale.

Surprisingly, though the appellants-RIADA has challenged the impugned order with respect to the judgment having been passed in W.P. (C) No.4151 of 2016, but there is no challenge to the order passed in W.P. (C) No.4157 of 2016. Thus, it has to be understood that the impugned order dated 01.08.2018, though is a common judgment passed in W.P. (C) No.4151 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No.4157 of 2016, since having not been challenged with respect to W.P. (C) No.4157 of 2016, the same has attained its finality so far as the aforesaid writ petition is concerned. So far as W.P. (C) No.4151 of 2016 is concerned, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

Now further question would arise, even supposing the appellants succeed in this appeal, the impugned order cannot be set aside so far as W.P. (C) No.4157 of 2016 is concerned because the same has not been challenged by filing a separate appeal and as such it has attained finality.

2. The factual matrix, which would be necessary to be discussed for consideration of the lis, stands enumerated as under: -

(i) The properties involved were originally allotted to M/s Eastern Natural Herb Extracts Limited and M/s. Rajgir Petro Chemical Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the original allottees”) for a period of 90 years by RIADA by executing two lease-deeds both dated 11th of October, 1999, for the purpose of manufacturing of medicated herbal extracts, natural colours and flavours.

(ii) The lessees/original allottees applied to the Lessor/RIADA for a permission to mortgage the leased properties to the Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘IDBI’) for the purpose of obtaining loan so that their industrial unit can be made functional. The permission for mortgaging the lease deed was given by RIADA through its letter dated 30.10.1999, a copy of which was produced for perusal of this Court at the time of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for RIADA has also admitted the aforesaid fact before this Court.

(iii) However, it appears that when the original allottees became defaulter then IDBI filed two cases before the Debts Recovery Tribunal,