TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner company, prays inter alia for quashing the demand made by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (East) at Jamshedpur under the provision of the Bihar Land (Surcharge on Rent) Ordinance 1977 as contained in Annexure -5 to the writ petition being in the nature of surcharge on rent together with 13% interest per annum for the period 1978 -79 to 1988 -89 (sic) amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,62,88,775.89 Paise (Rupees One Crore Sixty Two Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Five and Paise Eighty Nine Only) in respect of the lease hold premises of the company which were demised unto it by Deed of Lease dated 1.8.1985 (forming part of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 9.4.2004). The petitioners further pray for quashing the notice dated 18.9.1991 and the requisition for certificate, both having been issued under the provisions of Sections 5 and 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, and as contained in Annexure -7 appended to the writ petition as also for quashing the entire consequential certificate proceeding being certificate case No. 6 (Rent Cases) 1991 -92 pending before the Sub -Divisional Certificate Officer, Dalbhum at Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3).
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the aforementioned action on the part of the respondent in making demand of surcharge on rent is not at all applicable to the petitioner because the petitioner company is not a tenant within the meaning of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and, in any event, the provisions of the Bihar Land (Surcharge on Rent) Ordinance cannot be made applicable de hors the provisions of Article 213(2)(a) of the Constitution of India in as much as the said ordinance having not been placed before the Legislative Assembly, ceased to operate within the time stipulated under the said constitutional provision. Consequently, the demand amounts to fraud on the Constitution and after expiry of the Ordinance, the respondents have no authority to enforce a lapsed liability. The case of the petitioner No. 1 is, that by an agreement dated 4.8.1984 read with the Deed of Lease dated 1.8.1985 (brought on record by the supplementary affidavit filed on 9.4.2004), the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) demised unto the petitioner No. 1 lands for different purposes specifically mentioned in Schedules I to V of the said registered Deed of Lease executed on 1.8.1985 between the Governor of the State of Bihar and the Tata Iron and Steel Company. These lands were, in addition to those lands which had already been deemed to have been settled under Section 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 with effect from 1.1.1956 under Sections 7(D) and (E) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 upon terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the registered agreement and the Lease dated 4.8.1984 and 1.8.1985 respectively.
(3.) THE lands mentioned in Schedules I to V of the registered Deed of Lease dated 1.8.1985 as stated in the writ petition are as follows : "Schedule I. - -Lands used for storage of a materials and marshalling yards, for dumping of slag and other plant, wastes etc. (Clause II of the Agreement dated 4th August 1984); "Schedule II. - -Lands utilized for providing residential facilities to the employees of the company (Clause III of the Agreement dated 4th August 1984); Schedule III. - -Lands utilized for providing civic amenities such as health, welfare, hospitals dispensaries and clinics etc. (Clause IV of the Agreement dated 4th August 1984); Schedule IV. - -Lands leased to different parties such as other industrial undertakings individuals etc. (Clause (V), (IX) and (X) of the Agreement dated 4th August 1984); Schedule V. - -Residuary vacant lands to be used by the company only for factory production processes, providing civic amenities to the town and housing facilities to the employees of the company (Clause VII of the Agreement dated 4th August 1984);;