CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) BATCH of writ petitions seeking quashing of letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 have been filed by the petitioners claiming themselves sublessees with respect to a part of land under Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. Since a common question of law is involved in all the writ petitions, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, all the writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by a common order. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral raised an objection that a copy of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondentM/s Tata Steel Limited has been served only yesterday and therefore, he needs time for filing reply to the same. The counsel for the petitioners raised serious objection to the prayer for adjournment and submitted that in view of previous order passed by this Court, the matter may be heard today. Mr. Binod Kanth, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondentM/s Tata Steel Limited stated at bar that the rejoinder affidavit filed by M/s Tata Steel Limited may be ignored.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case leading to issuance of letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 are summarised thus; A memorandum of agreement was signed between the Provincial Government and M/s Tata Steel Limited on 08.07.1909 with respect to an area of 3564.63 acres of land. About 3564.63 acres of land was acquired by the erstwhile Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, out of which an area of 3509.90 acres was conveyed to M/s Tata Steel Limited through a deed of conveyance registered on 19.01.1912. Thereafter, memoranda of agreements dated 09.07.1918 and 18.10.1919 were also signed between the parties. After the memoranda of agreements dated 09.07.1918 and 18.10.1919 were signed between the parties, a deed of conveyance with respect to 12214.74 acres of land was executed in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited. The total land thus conveyed, in absolute ownership, in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited was 15,725.05 acres. M/s Tata Steel Limited constructed a Steel Plant and developed a planned township in the vicinity. After the State Government initiated proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, a series of litigations ensued which ultimately ended in insertion of Sections 7D and 7E in the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Thereafter, an agreement of lease was executed by the erstwhile State of Bihar in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited on 04.08.1984 and subsequently, an Indenture of Lease dated 01.08.1985 was executed in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited. Initially, the lease was executed for a period of 40 years with effect from 01.01.1956, with a provision for further extension for a period of 30 years, at the option of M/s Tata Steel Limited. After the said period of lease expired on 31.12.1995, M/s Tata Steel Limited exercised its option for renewal by letter dated 03.08.1995. The State of Jharkhand extended the period of lease for another 30 years by executing an Indenture of Lease which was registered on 20.08.2005. By a deeming provision incorporated in Section 7E of the Act of 1950, the leases granted by M/s Tata Steel Limited were recognised as subleases, on payment of fair and equitable rent, on terms and conditions to be settled by the State Government. The Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 also contained a similar provision for sublease of land by M/s Tata Steel Limited in favour of any person, with the prior approval of the lessor, that is, the State Government and a provision is incorporated in Clause 8 of the leasedeed. Vide Resolution dated 06.12.2005, an Appropriate Machinery Committee was set up by the State of Jharkhand for expeditious disposal of cases of sublease in terms of Cabinet decision dated 19.08.2005. The petitioners submitted applications to M/s Tata Steel Limited to allot and/or sublease a piece of land in the area held by M/s Tata Steel Limited under the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. M/s Tata Steel Limited forwarded the proposals to the Appropriate Machinery Committee and the proposals were considered by the Appropriate Machinery Committee in its meeting held on 09.03.2007. After the approval of the proposals by the Appropriate Machinery Committee, the respondentM/s Tata Steel Limited requested the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to process the proposals for seeking approval of the State Government. The State Government granted its approval on certain terms and conditions and communicated the same to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum and the same has been communicated to the petitioners also. The petitioners were put in possession and agreement for subleases were executed between M/s Tata Steel Limited and some of the petitioners on different dates. The petitioners thereafter, paid rent for each financial year, though under protest, to M/s Tata Steel Limited. The petitioners thereafter, took necessary steps for construction over the land covered under the sublease and in many cases substantial construction has been completed. The necessary details in all the writ petitions are detailed below: JUDGEMENT_42_LAWS(JHAR)12_2014.htm
(3.) IN the counteraffidavit, the respondentState of Jharkhand took similar stand in all the cases stating that for examining the irregularity in the matter of subleases to the petitioners and others and for examining the loss of Government revenue, the Government got the matter enquired into by Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand who submitted his report indicating certain irregularity and loss of revenue. In view of the report of the Member, Board of Revenue, the Government directed vide letter dated 17.09.2012 to ensure that the geographical condition of the lands in question does not change. M/s Tata Steel Limited vide letter dated 22.09.2012, sent a compliance report to the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated that the recommendation for subleases is under enquiry and therefore, the State Government has rightly issued directions for stoppage of construction work. A rejoinder to the counteraffidavit of the respondentState of Jharkhand has been filed by the petitioner(s) denying that the State of Jharkhand is the paramount owner of the land in question. It is stated that the respondentState of Jharkhand in its capacity as a lessor is bound by the procedure laid down in the leasedeed with regard to grant of subleases. The report dated 12.10.2010 is illegal and without jurisdiction and any action taken in pursuance thereof also must be held illegal and without jurisdiction. In absence of any statutory provisions or the rules, an anonymous complain cannot be made basis for conducting an enquiry. Even if it is assumed that there has been some irregularity in the matter of grant of subleases, that by itself does not make the grant of approval in favour of the petitioners, illegal or unlawful. The plea that the State Government suffered revenue loss is baseless and unfounded as the rent sought to be realised from each sublessee is in terms of Government's own policy decision. Sections 7D and 7E contemplate grant of sublease for industrial, commercial, residential or for such other purposes on payment of fair and equitable rent. The action of the State Government is not only arbitrary, harsh and disproportionate, it follows civil consequences including severe financial losses, without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. ;