Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner-State of Jharkhand is aggrieved of order dated 04.04.2014 passed in Title (D) Suit No.30 of 1991 by which its application for amendments in the plaint has been rejected.
(2.) Inspite of due service of notice upon them the respondents have not appeared in this writ proceeding. The petitioner-State of Jharkhand has filed affidavit dated 07.6.2017 on service of notice upon the respondents.
(3.) The litigation in respect of the suit lands has a chequered history. But before the previous proceedings are recorded, it is necessary to record few facts pleaded in Title (D) Suit No.30 of 1991. The plaintiff has pleaded that the suit schedule property popularly known as 'Rohini Estate' was a Ghatwali property. The successor of a Ghatwal would inherit the estate, but only the life interest. By a registered lease-deed dated 11.11.1905 a piece of land referred to as "Hill View" was given on lease to Yogendra Nath Bose for 50 years from 1312 BC to 1361 BC, that is, till 1955 A.D. However, in a family settlement dated 08.08.1911 the suit land fell in share of Ekkarinath Bose who transferred the said land in favour of Onkarmall Jatia. The plaintiff has pleaded that the sale-deed in favour of the said Onkarmall Jatia contains a recital that the transfer was subject to the rights and obligations under the lease-deed. The defendants are legal heirs and successors of said Onkarmall Jatia. Further case set-up by the plaintiff is that on expiry of the lease-deed the defendants did not make any application for renewal or extension of lease period either to the 'Rohini Estate' or the State of Bihar, after the vesting in the State. It is pleaded that there was no verification in respect of the return submitted by the Ghatwal and the ex-landlord also did not submit a copy of the lease granted by the State, however, during search for a suitable land for Circuit House when it was found that the suit land is a lease-hold land and its period has already expired a notice was issued to the Chairman of Sri Onkarmall Jatia Trust and thereafter, Misc. Case No.01 of 1989-90 was instituted. By an order dated 08.12.1989 the Additional Collector, Deoghar held that the lease was valid uptill 1955 and thereafter possession of D.N. Jatia was illegal. Aggrieved by this order, D.N. Jatia came to this Court in W.P.(C) No.10301 of 1989. The writ petition was allowed by an order dated 04.04.1990. This order was challenged by the State of Bihar in S.L.P. (Civil) No.9785 of 1990, however, by that time a decision to institute a suit was already taken by the State government. The Special Leave Petition stood disposed of on 16.01.1991, but without prejudice to the right of the State to obtain possession of the land in question, in accordance with law. In the pending suit after the plaintiff had examined two witnesses an application for amendments was filed. The amendment sought in paragraph nos.3, 4 and 11 of the plaint are relevant. These proposed amendments are contained in paragraph nos.4, 5 and 6 of the application dated 03.10.2012, which read as under: "4. That after end of para 3 the following sentence may be added, "The leasehold property the 'Hill-view' belonging to Jogendra Nath Bose alone was illegally transferred firstly by way of an alleged family settlement dated 08.08.1911 in favour of Ekrari Nath Bose with oblique motive to facilitate its 2nd transaction by way of an illegal sale in favour of Onkar Mall Jetia in clear violation of the terms and conditions of Lease Deed. There being specific mandate in the Lease Deed the Lessee was/is/precluded from entering into any such transfer by any such mode. Accordingly, the alleged family settlement dated 08.08.1911 in favour of Ekrari Nath Bose followed with transfer of the same by way of Sale Deed being ipso-facto bad in law is illegal and invalid under all circumstances". 5. That in para 4 after the full stop as sub para the following may be added. "The lessee having been precluded from entering into the sale of the suit property in contravention to the terms and conditions of the lease deed incurred the liabilities for cancellation of the same ipso-facto. Accordingly there being clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed, the lessee lost the same long back. 6. That after the end of para 11 para 11 A may be added, Para 11 A - That the lease in question being neither for the period of infinitum nor perpetual in nature and there being no renewal the same within the period in subsistence it expired, and became disown to the Government.";