- (1.) Seeking quashing of order contained in memo dated 29.05.2010 and order dated 10.08.2010 in Khas Mahal Lease Renewal Appeal No. 64 of 2008, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, land comprised in Plot No. 47/634, Holding No. 163 in village Sarle, Hazaribag admeasuring 3 acres was given on lease to Azizul Haque and the original lessee was given possession of the same, who continued to pay rent for the same. The original lessee died on 11.10.1963 leaving behind 7 legal heirs and successors. The lease in favour of the original lessee was to expire on 31.03.1978 and therefore, an application for renewal dated 28.12.1977 was sent on 02.02.1978 by registered post. One Md. ObaidulHaque was constituted as power of attorney holder on 28.11.1987 by the legal heirs of original lessee to manage the leased property situated on Plot No. 47/634. A notice dated 08.05.1986 was issued and sent through registered post to the legal heirs of the original lessee at their Calcutta address intimating them that order has been passed for resumption of land in question and they were directed to hand over the land in question to the Halka Karamchari on 10.05.1986. On 15.07.1986, the petitioner who is the grandson of the original lessee sent a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag stating that the order of resumption is illegal and hit by Rule 22 of Khas Mahal Manual. When no order was passed on the renewal application, one Masudul Haque, the son of the original lessee moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2711 of 2004 which was disposed of on 19.05.2004 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order on the application for renewal of the Khas Mahal Lease, within a period of four weeks. In the month of June, 2007 when the petitioner enquired about the order of renewal of lease, an order dated 08.01.2007 was brought to his notice by which the application for renewal was rejected. The petitioner's uncle again moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4202 of 2007 which was disposed of granting liberty for preferring an appeal against the said order. And thereafter, the petitioner filed Khas Mahal Renewal Appeal No. 64 of 2008 in the Court of Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag. In the meantime, vide order dated 29.05.2010, the Commissioner passed an order for transfer of land in question and therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner for withdrawal of order contained in memo dated 29.05.2010. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2010. In these facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag stating that an area of 8 decimal from the land in question comprised in Plot No. 47, Holding No. 163 was purported to have been transferred to Damodar Valley Corporation, Hazaribag by the order of the State Government. The lease was executed on 04.06.1948 in favour of Md. Azizul Haque for 30 years commencing from 01.04.1948. The petitioner purportedly submitted application for renewal of lease showing his present address at 5, Mustak Ahmed Street, Calcutta16. It was manifest that the petitioner at the time of making application for renewal was not in use and occupation of any portion of the premises in question. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner has abandoned the premises. The structures thereon were in most dilapidated condition and the petitioner was not serious nor diligent in prosecuting application for renewal. In terms of Government letter dated 04.09.1981 which provides that in case, the leasehold property is left vacant and uncared or unused and undeveloped, renewal of lease cannot be granted. The lease in the present case, which was to expire on 31.03.1978 cannot be renewed. No rent was paid by the lessee since 197172 and in these facts, the respondent no. 4Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag recommended for resumption of leasehold .property and vide order dated 22.03.1986, the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division ordered resumption of the leasehold property. Against the order of resumption, Jahirul Haque and others moved Calcutta High Court vide Case No. 7307 of 1988 in which the Government of Bihar filed counteraffidavit. The said case has been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 17 years thereafter, one Prabhat Kumar Sinha claiming himself to be the power of attorney holder, filed Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 5434 of 2002 which was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2003. Thereafter, Masudul Haque, son of the original lessee also filed the Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 2711 of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.05.2004 directing the respondent no. 3 to pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of Khas Mahal Lease. Since order of resumption was already passed in the year, 1986 itself, no fresh order was required to be passed on the subsequent application filed by the petitioner or any of the legal heirs of the original lessee. The said Masudul Haque again filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 6912 of 2004 for the same relief which was disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2006 directing the respondent to consider the matter of renewal though, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. In compliance of order passed by this Court, the matter was examined. Since the leasehold property was resumed for violation of the lease agreement, the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.01.2007. The said Masudul Haque again preferred a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 4202 of 2007 for the same relief which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2008. On the requisition of the Education Department, an area of 8 decimal of land has been transferred for construction of Nav Prathmik Vidyalaya in terms of a decision taken by the Government of Jharkhand and the same has been communicated by the Secretary of the Department vide memo dated 29.05.2010. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.;