D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners are sub-lessees of the properties, in question. Leases were given by the Tata Steel Limited. By virtue of Sections 7-D and 7-E of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the Tata Steel Limited had entered into lease agreement with the respondent-State, wherein, clause 8 thereof imposes an obligation upon the Tata Steel Limited to seek approval if at all the land is to be subleased.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that as per the aforesaid clause 8 of the lease agreement, an approval was sought for the sub-lease to be entered into, which was also granted, but, a condition for deposition of the sizable amount was imposed. The amount ordered to be paid has been fixed arbitrarily and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the proposed sub-lessee, who are the petitioners.
(3.) It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the demand made by the State of Jharkhand for the amount to be paid for grant of sub-lease, is without any authority of law and, hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. No law permits the State of Jharkhand to impose and levy, any amount for approval of sub-lease from the hands of the lessee i.e. Tata Steel Limited to propose sub-lessee i.e. the petitioners.;