- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the letter no. 406 dated 2005 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent no. 2, Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi addressed to the respondent no. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, whereby in the matter of renewal of Khas Mahal Lease for the period 1978 to 2008 for 30 years, by the impugned letter, only 0.48 acres of land out of 2.50 acres of land earlier leased to the petitioner, has been allowed for renewal subject to payment of Rs. 62,400/- as salami and rent of Rs. 58/- per year. By the same letter, rest of 2.02 acres of land have been ordered to be resumed by the State for the reason that such land have been found to be not utilized by the petitioner in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 14.07.1975, the lease for khas mahal area of 2.50 acres of land falling under Holding No. 154 Plot No. 47 / 632 in village-Sarle was transferred in the name of the petitioner by fixing the rent at Rs. 150/-. The said lease was for the period up to 31.03.1978 (Annexure-1). The petitioner thereafter made an application for renewal of the lease before the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5), on the basis of which, a case no. 02/84-85 was instituted before the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh. It is submitted that by letter dated 25th September 2002, the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh recommended for renewal of the entire leased area as per clause-14 of the lease agreement. In spite of the aforesaid recommendation, as the lease of the petitioner was not being renewed, a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for directing the respondents to take an early decision in respect of the same vide W.P.(C) No. 4590 of 2003 which was disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to consider and dispose of the renewal matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the order. By letter dated 03.2005 (Annexure-3), the Additional Collector of the Revenue and Land Reform Department (Respondent No. 2) has communicated the decision of the Government to renew the lease in respect of only 0.48 acres of land at the rate of 2% of the present value of the land amounting to Rs. 62,400/- as salami and double the annual rent of that portion only amounting to Rs. 58.00. By the said decision, the rest of 2.02 acres out of 2.50 acres of land earlier allotted on lease to the petitioner, was resumed on the ground that they were not being used by the petitioner. The petitioner has subsequently been issued the letter informing him of the same under the signature of the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5) which is also impugned in this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid decision suffers from non-application of mind and arbitrariness as from the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner himself bringing on record the recommendation of the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-5), it would appear that the respondent no. 5 had clearly recommended that the petitioner has utilized the entire area of 2.50 acres of lease hold land and had also constructed a pucca house along with a boundary wall over the entire piece of land. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that raising of salami as aforesaid by the impugned order, are also in teeth of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No. 1805 of 2003 dated 18.09.2007 whereby also respondents by relying upon the same Circular Dated 19th January 2002, had enhanced the salami for renwal of lease of khas mahal land. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Division Bench of this court did not express any opinion over the validity of the said circular, but in view of the fair stand of the respondent State, observed that the notification should not have retrospective effect by enhancing the salami in respect of khas mahal lease of land for which renewal is pending from before the notification.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, by referring to averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that the renewal of the lease of khas mahal land pursuant to the conditions as contained in lease agreement were pending consideration before the respondent State and in this case, it was found that the petitioner had only utilized 0.48 acres out of 2.50 acres of total lease hold area earlier leased to him in the year 1975. However, respondents were allowed time repeatedly to obtain specific instruction in respect of the recommendation of the respondent no. 5, Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh dated 02.05.2003 brought on record by way of Annexure-5 to the reply to the counter affidavit. However, in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 5, no justifiable reason has been shown nor any document has been brought on record to refute the contention of the petitioner based upon the recommendation of the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5) vide letter dated 02.05.2003. The respondents have also once again reiterated the same stand in the said reply without disputing the contention of the petitioner as aforesaid that the petitioner had utilized only 0.48 acres of lease hold land out of 2.50 acres of land earlier leased to the petitioner and the resumption of the land to the extent of 2.02 acres of land was justified. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the impugned order by which the resumption of 2.02 acres of land out of 2.50 acres of land earlier leased to the petitioner by the respondent State has been made, does not appear to be substantiated by any justifiable reasons and are also contrary to the recommendation of the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5). It further appears that the raising of salami by the impugned letters by relying upon the notification dated 19th January 2002 (Annexure-B) is also without application of mind and more so, in view of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1805 of 2003 observing that the effect of the said notification could not be retrospective.;