M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 1.7.2000 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Transfer Permission case No. 29/1992 -93 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for grant of prior permission for the transfer of the land in question and directed for resumption of the lease hold property.
(2.) PETITIONERS ' case is that Ganpat Rai Sethi, their grand father, was granted a building lease in respect of an area of 2.75 acres of land bearing holding No. 87 situated at village, Sarlay in the town of Hazaribagh. On the death of the original lessee, the lease was renewed in favour of Hira Lall Sethi and Panna Lall Sethi in terms of a registered indenture for the period of 30 years i.e., from 1.4.1978 to 31.3.2008. Petitioners ' further case is that both the lessees filed a joint application before respondent No. 3 for transfer of 30 decimals of lease hold property in favour of five different persons which application was registered as Transfer Permission case No. 29/1992 -93 in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the sale deeds for determination of the market rate of the land in question. Petitioner said to have deposited 50% of the amount required to be deposited for the purpose of grant of permission. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh recommended for grant of prior permission in favour of the petitioner and sent the file to the Commissioner for final order. The Commissioner, in his turn, passed the impugned order rejecting the application for grant of prior permission and also directed for resumption of the lease hold property. By the said order the Deputy Commissioner has been directed to take steps for resumption of the entire lease hold property. The respondents have filed counter -affidavit stating, inter alia, that the land of holding No. 87, plot No. 445 measuring an area of 2.75 acres was previously settled with Sri Mahabirjee through the Sebayat, Sri Ganpat Rai Saroogi and the lease was registered in the year, 1948 for 30 years. After expiry of the lease the Sewayat, Panna Lal Sethi applied for renewal of lease on 31.12.77 for another period of 30 years i.e., from 1.4.78 to 31.3.2008. The lease of the land was accordingly renewed vide Commissioner 'sletter dated 6.9.86. It is stated that in the meantime the said Sebayat, Ganpat Rai Saroogi, father of the petitioner died and mutation and succession was allowed in favour of Hiralal Sethi and Panna Lal Sethi, the Sebayat of Shree Mahabirjee vide Commissioner letter dated 12.12.88. As per order of the Divisional Commissioner, the lease was renewed in the name of Shree Mahabirjee through the Sebayat, Hiralal Sethi and Panna Lal Sethi for the period till 31.3.2008. It is further stated that a person, namely, Surajmal Jain, the holder of power of attorney of Hira Lal Sethi and Panna Lal Sethi filed a petition for grant of permission to transfer the land measuring 0.40 decimals of land within the aforesaid lease hold land in favour of Sheo Bachan Singh and four others. On inquiry it was found that one of the Sebayat, Panna Lal Sethi died and the power of attorney holder also died. The alive Sebayat, Hiralal Sethi has been directed by the authority concerned to mutate the name of the heirs of the deceased Sebayat, Panna Lal Sethi. In compliance of the aforesaid order the Sebayat, Hiralal Sethi filed a petition stating that the only legal heir of Parmalal Sethi is Shanti Devi who has shown no interest in the property in question. Considering all these facts the Commissioner rejected the application for grant of prior permission to transfer the land and further directed for resumption of the same.
(3.) MR . P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that when the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements for transfer of the lease hold interest, the same could not have been refused by the Commissioner. Learned Counsel mainly assailed that part of the order by which the Commissioner, while refusing to grant permission to transfer the lease hold land, also directed for resumption of the land. According to the learned Counsel the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to direct for the resumption of the land in arbitrary manner.;