Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Ashiana Housing Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 529 & 2697 of 2019
Decided On : 29-09-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate
Once consent is granted by the appropriate committee for sub-lease, the State cannot unilaterally withdraw the consent unless obtained by fraud or undue influence.
Headnote:
Sub-lease - Land Allotment - Clause 8 of Lease Deed - Jharkhand Executive Manual - Transfer of Property Act - Registration Act - Indian Stamp Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were allotted land on sub-lease by Tata Steel and granted permission for construction by JNAC. However, the State Government ordered a status quo on the sub-lease execution, leading to the filing of writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that once the appropriate committee grants consent to sub-lease, the State cannot unilaterally withdraw the consent unless obtained by fraud or undue influence. The court rejected the State's arguments of loss of revenue and violation of rules, directing the execution of the sub-lease and approval of the building plan.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State Government could cancel or withdraw the consent for sub-lease granted under clause 8 of the agreement, in the absence of fraud or undue influence.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the appropriate committee grants consent to sub-lease, the State cannot unilaterally withdraw the consent unless obtained by fraud or undue influence. The State's arguments of loss of revenue and violation of rules were rejected.
Final Decision: The court directed Tata Steel to execute the registered sub-lease in favor of the petitioners and instructed JNAC to approve the revised building plan in line with the sub-lease. The order of status quo on the sub-lease was not to hinder the execution of the sub-lease. Both writ petitions were allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Both the writ petitions have been preferred by the parties who had been allotted plots of land on agreement for sub-lease by Tata Steel (R-4) and permission was granted by JNAC (R-5) for the construction of the commercial buildings.
2. It is the case of Ashiana Housing Limited that due permission was obtained for the sub-lease in favour of the petitioner from the State Government and upon receipt of the approval of the settlement of land in favour of the petitioner by way of a sub-lease, the Deputy Commissioner (R-3) addressed to the Petitioner, directed the Petitioner to deposit annual rent and cess.
3. In case of Parikh Inn Pvt. Ltd also the petitioner was allotted a land on sub-Lease basis regarding which agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and Tata Steel Ltd. The said agreement was pursuant to the permission of the State Govt. as intimated to the petitioner by the Tata Steel. Permission for the construction of the said Hotel was granted and the requisite fee was also deposited with Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee.
4. Despite the permission for sub-lease having been granted, an order of status quo has been communicated by the Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to a decision of the State Government, consequently the execution of registered sub-lease has been stalled. Aggrieved by the non-execution of the sub-lease, the instant writ petition has been filed. Since both the cases involve common question of fact and law, therefore they are together and will be disposed of by the common order.
PETITIONER’S CASE
5. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.529 of 2019 is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of real estate development. Respondent no.4-M/s. Tata Steel Limited executed agreement for lease on 7th October, 2009 in favour of Petitioner-Company with respect to portion of land measuring portion of land 02 acre in Plot No.75(A), Khata No.622, JNAC, Sonary, Jamshedpur.
6. Tata Steel Limited is the leaseholder. The lease deed contains provision for grant of sub-lease of the said lease commonly known as “Tata Lease Land” in favour of any other party with the prior approval of the State Government as per clause-8 of the Lease Deed. An appropriate committee had been constituted by the Government of Jharkhand to give effect to provision of clause-8 by Circular No.3874/RA-6/12/05.
7. On the request of the petitioner to Tata Steel for allotment of a piece of land for setting up of multiplex/shopping mall/commercial complex, proposal was recommended to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for grant of sub-lease right in favour of the petitioner- Ashiana Housing Limited vide their letter dated 03.05.2007. The proposal was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt of Jharkhand for settlement of a portion of lease land of Tata Steel Ltd. in favour of the Petitioner Company by way of sub-lease.
8. The due permission was obtained for the sub-lease in favour of the petitioner- Ashiana Housing Limited from the State Government (Memo No.3858/Ra dated 17.11.2008). The aforesaid approval was accorded in the letter of the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt of Jharkhand addressed to the Deputy Commissioner (R-3).
9. Upon receipt of the approval of the settlement of land in favour of the petitioner by way of a sub-lease, the Deputy Commissioner (R-3) vide letter no. 837 dated 01.12.2008 addressed to the petitioner, directed the petitioner to deposit annual rent and cess.
10. Deputy Commissioner (R-3) recommended the sub-lease for 2.00 acres of land in favour of petitioner- Ashiana Housing Limited on annual rent and cess being paid, in favour of the petitioner.
11. Tata Steel (R-4) consequently delivered the possession of the land in question as would be evident from the certificate of delivery of possession of sub-leased land on 02.01.2009 and the possession of the plot was received by the Petitioner Company.
12. Tata Steel (R-4) entered into an a
