- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order dated 30.8.1997, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ application, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh said to have rejected the petition purported to have been filed for renewal of her sub -lease with respect to 4 decimals of land being holding No. 179, Khata No. 745/774 situated in Village Okni in the District of Hazaribagh and also for a direction to the Respondents to renew the lease of the petitioner for 30 years, i.e. from 1978 to March 2008.
(2.) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are that holding No. 179 Plot No. 745/774 total area 0.92 acres of land situated in Village Okni was leased out in favour of Chhotanagpur Banking Association on 1.4.1948. The Chhotanagpur Banking Association went in liquidation and as per the order of Patna High Court, one Sri U.P. Mathur was appointed as its Liquidator. By the order of the Company Judge of the High Court out of the aforesaid 0.92 acres of land, 0.88 acres of land was transferred by way of sale to Sardar Khajan Singh and Sardar Lal Singh. For the remaining 0.04 acres of land, Sri U.P. Mathur, i.e. the Liquidator had applied for renewal of the Khas Maha/lease. On the basis of which the proceeding was initiated by the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribag, which was registered as Hazaribagh Case No. 180/77 -78. In the said proceeding, the petitioner Dr. Pritha Chatterji, filed an application stating therein that holding No. 179, Plot No. 745/ 77 4 area 37 ft. x 22 fl. was given on sublease by the Chhotanagpur Banking Association to her husband Late B.C. Chatterji on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. She further stated that after the death of Late B.C. Chatterji, she being the widow, was in possession of 0.04 acres of land and, therefore, the lease should be renewed with her. From the registered sub -lease deed, which has been annexed as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit, it appears that only 0.02 acres of land was given on sub -lease by the Chhotanagpur Banking Association to Late Binay Chandra Chatterji, the husband of the petitioner Dr. Pritha Chatterji, but the petitioner claimed that she was in possession of 0.04 acres of land, i.e. more than the area what was sub -leased to her husband Late Dr. Binay Chandra Chatterji by the Chhotanagpur Banking Association Ltd. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was asked as to whether she was willing to take settlement of the aforesaid land as per the terms and conditions of the lease and then the petitioner had given in writing that she wants renewal of the lease as she was in possession over the lease hold area and she is ready to pay amount for renewal of the lease. On the basis of which the Khas Mahal Officer recommended that the said piece of land can be settled with the petitioner provided that she makes payment of the land @ Rs. 8000/ - and Rs. 400/ - as yearly rent. Further case of the petitioner is that the Additional Collector by his order dated 4.5.1985 ordered that the said land can be settled with the petitioner after she deposit Rs. 8000/ - as Salami and Rs. 800/ - as yearly rent being 10 percent of the Salami by 27.7.1985. Subsequently, the Revenue Department sent a letter whereby direction was issued to send proposal after making fresh assessment of value of the land. The value of the land was freshly assessed at Rs. 5 lacs per acre. The matter remained pending since 1978 till 1997 for one reason or the other and ultimately by order dated 30.8.1997. contained in Annexure -1 to the writ application, the petition filed by the petitioner for renewal of the lease was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, which has been challenged in this writ application. The petitioner prayed that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh wrongly and illegally passed the order rejecting his petition for renewal of the sub -lease in her favour though she is in possession of the 0.04 acres of land in question and she was ready to take the same on settlement by Khas Mahal sub -lease.
(3.) FROM the impugned order it appears that on enquiry it come to light that 37 ft. x 22 ft. of the land in question was presently in occupation of one Manish Agrawal, whom the petitioner had given power of attorney to look after the property but the power of attorney holder was doing business in the said premises.;