Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
P & M Infrastructures Limited - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 1348 of 2017
Decided on : 28-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate, Mr. K. Hari, Advocate, Mr. Chaitanya Vijay, Advocate, Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kumar Ray, Advocate
The court affirmed that the sub-lease is valid despite initial non-registration, emphasizing the importance of respecting prior administrative approvals while allowing for resolution of outstanding rental-related disputes.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 107 - Registration Act, 1908 - Validity of a sub-lease - Court ruled that the sub-lease granted to petitioner is valid despite being unregistered initially as possession was delivered. Court emphasizes that statutory approvals must not unjustly hinder execution of rights after compliance with original agreements. The inquiry into irregularities regarding sub-lease was acknowledged but must not impede rights once consent was granted. (Paras 42-48)
(B) Legal compliance - The petitioner is to receive a registered sub-lease post-finalization of lease rental issues. The existing lease remains intact until administrative resolutions are concluded. Court underlines that unilateral cancellation lacks merits where due process existed earlier for granting sub-lease rights. The State must honor pre-existing consents made in legitimate transactions. (Paras 39-41)
(C) Context - The petitioner claimed rights under prior agreements with Tata Steel, asserting proper payments have been made and reported a potential loss of financial opportunity due to administrative delays. Absence of a completed inquiry was cited as affecting construction permissions. The State's objections were noted but deemed insufficient to disregard prior approvals. (Paras 1-30)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks declaratory reliefs regarding sub-lease rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding execution of the sub-lease. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. chronology of land acquisition and sub-lease agreements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. interim orders and relevant judicial decisions impacting the case. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. enquiry findings regarding irregularities in the sub-lease. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. legal positions on the validity of the sub-lease and its implications. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. court reinforces previous rulings on sub-lease execution. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. final conclusion directing execution of sub-lease upon specified conditions. (Para 45 , 46 , 49) |
| 9. court’s ruling mandates a registered sub-lease upon settling rental disputes. (Para 48) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), and/or direction including a writ of declaration, declaring that the respondent-State of Jharkhand cannot interfere in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful enjoyment of right, title and interest over the property sub-leased in favour of the petitioner, having an area of 3.12 Acres, situated in Plot No. 952, 966 and 973(P) in Ward No.4 of Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) at Jamshedpur;
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s), order(s), and/or direction including a writ of declaration, declaring that alleged pendency of the enquiry in the matter of sub- lease against the petitioner by the State Government, cannot in any manner effect the grant of Statutory Clearances and/or administrative approvals required in law by the petitioner for making its multiplex-cum-mall functional over its sub-leased property, after sub-lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner;
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s), order(s), and/or direction being consequential directions to the respondent-State of Jharkhand and to respondent-Tata Steel Ltd to complete necessary formalities relating to sub- leased land allotted in favour of the petitioner including execution of the formal sublease, acceptance of lease rent etc. from the petitioner in respect of sub-leased land, having an area of 3.12 Acres, situated in Plot No. 952, 966 and 973(P) in Ward No.4 of Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee( JNAC) at Jamshedpur;
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/order/direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. After placing the sequence of events, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P(C) No. 529 of 2019 and analogous case wherein a direction has been issued to the respondents to execute registered sub-lease in favour of the writ petitioner of that case who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner of the present case. It has been submitted that an appeal was also filed against the aforesaid judgement which has been dismissed though only on the point of limitation and it has also been observed that the plea of res-judicata will not be available with respect to other cases, if any.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the report of the enquiry committee was not available in aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 529 of 2019 and in present case, there is a report which has been annexed along with the supplementary counter affidavit. The learned counsel has submitted that the primary objection of the State is that the Tata Steel Limited (the lessee under the State) had handed over the property involved in this case to the petitioner as sub-lessee without any registered document of sub-lease.
4. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter dated 23.06.2006 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition and has submitted that as per the said letter itself the entire payment has
