D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. L.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned counsel for the State.
(2.) By this application, petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 15-12-2004 as contained in Annexure-8 to this writ application, which was issued by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh to the Secretary to the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, informing him that the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the Khas Mahal Lease in respect of plot No. 1065 within holding No. 239 measuring 62 decimals, situated at village Cantonment in the Sarkari Hata Government Estate, Hazaribagh, has been rejected and the lands alleged to have been resumed.
(3.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the instant case, are as follows: The land in question was leased out by the respondents to one Mr. S.G. Haupt for a period of 20 years by virtue of Registered Indenture dated 1-4-1928. During the subsistence of lease, the said lessee Mrs. S.G. Haupt executed a Will in favour of one Mrs. Sheila Mercy. After the death of Mr. S.G. Haupt, Mrs. Sheila Mercy filed an application vide Probate Case No. 29 of 1946 for grant of probate, which was allowed by the Judicial Commissioner, Chhotanagpur vide order dated 9th August, 1948. Mrs. Sheila Mercy thereafter appointed her husband as constituted Attorney under the registered power of Attorney dated 24-8-1949. Mr. Sheila Mercy also applied for renewal of the lease which was allowed vide order dated 24-9-1949, a copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ application. After renewal of the lease, Mrs. Sheila Mercy through her husband and constituted Attorney applied before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh seeking permission to sell the land in favour of Smt. Jyotsna Devi. Permission was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh vide order dated 22-5-1950, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. Mrs. Sheila Mercy then sold the lease hold land in favour of Smt. Jyotsna Devi by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 20-6-1950. After the said purchase, the purcahser Sint. Jyotsna Devi got her name mutated and started paying rent and taxes in respect of said lease hold land. Before expiry of the lease, she also applied for renewal of lease which was registered as Renewal Case No. 47 of 1977-78. Pending renewal application, Smt. Jyotsna Devi died on 8-1-1982 leaving behind the present petitioner as her only son. After the death of the lessee Jyotsna Devi, petitioner also made an application for renewal of the lease. It was only thereafter, the impugned letter dated 15-12-2004 (Annexure-8) was issued by the Additional Collector informing the other respondent that the application for renewal of Khas Mahal lease was rejected and the land was resumed. As stated above, this fact has not been denied and disputed by the respondents.;