- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that Permission Case No. 01/2006 -07 has been instituted by the daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas, who was the lessee of the suit property for 30 years. Upon his death, sons of Mukunda Lal Biswas namely Ranjit Kumar Biswas and Bishwanath Biswas were continued to possess the lease hold property for remaining period of the lease. Upon expiry of the said lease period of 30 years, which was given to Mukunda Lal Biswas, both the sons had applied for renewal of the lease. The Government being a lessor of the property renewed the lease for 30 years in favour of Ranjit Kumar Biswas and Bishwanath Biswas. Three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas at that time had given their no objection. Thus, it is alleged by counsel for the petitioner that the three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas relinquished their rights in favour of their two brothers. This is how the lease was renewed by the Government in favour of Ranjit Kumar Biswas and Bishwanath Biswas for 30 years. It is alleged by counsel for the petitioner that by the passage of time, Ranjit Kumar Biswas expired and the lease hold property was continued in possession of Bishwanath Biswas alone, who executed the Will in favour of the present petitioner dated 29th August, 2002 and, thereafter, Bishwanath Biswas expired on 6th June, 2005 and, therefore, it is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that now the petitioner must be the lessee of lease hold property for the remaining period of renewed lease and for that the petitioner has applied for getting probate before the concerned Trial Court and the probate case bearing Probate Case No. 8/2007 is pending before learned District Judge, Palamau.
(2.) IT is further alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that at such a belated stage, three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas preferred an application bearing Permission Case No. 01/2006 - 07, seeking permission to sell the property and, therefore, the petitioner has applied for hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj prior to grant of such a permission to the three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas and it is apprehended by the petitioner that if the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj (respondent no. 2) grants permission for selling of the property, it will cause an irreparable loss to the petitioner because the Will has been executed by Bishwanath Biswas (one of the lease holder of the renewed lease), in favour of the petitioner vide Will dated 29th August, 2002. Thus, till the probate case is decided, which is filed by the petitioner, an application preferred by the three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas being Permission Case No. 01/2006 -07 may not be decided or if the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj is deciding the matter, the petitioner must be given an opportunity of being heard or if the application is going to be dismissed, then petitioner has no much objection. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas can not sell the property because owner of the property is the Government. The Government is the lessor and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the tallest claim of the daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas that they can be lessee for the remaining period, but, the lease of Mukunda Lal Biswas has already been expired and there is no renewal of the lease in favour of these three daughters, therefore, they can not apply for sale of the property or sale of their lease hold rights for the remaining period of lease because no lease was ever given to these three daughters by the Government and, therefore, this petition may be allowed by this Court. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who has vehemently submitted that the Government is the owner of the property in question, the Government is the lessor of the property in question, right of selling of property is vested in the Government and it never vests in the lessee and, therefore, there is no question of allowing any application preferred by the three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas whatsoever arises. The prayer for selling of the property can not be made by any lessee, much less by the legal heir of the lessee. It is also vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that initially the lease was given to Mukunda Lal Biswas. The lease has expired and Mukunda Lal Biswas has also expired. Two sons of Mukunda Lal Biswas have applied for renewal of the lease and it was renewed in favour of two sons of Mukunda Lal Biswas. Thus, the lease was never given to the three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas and, therefore, there is no question of allowing the selling of the property nor the three daughters have any right to sell the lease hold property because they were never lessee of property in question and, therefore, there is no need to hear the petitioner. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also no locus standi in Permission Case No. 01/2006 -07. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the name of the petitioner has not mutated in the revenue records and, therefore also, there is no locus standi with the petitioner in the Permission Case No. 01/2006 -07. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner's right under the Will is in belligerent stage. No right of the petitioner has been crystallized under the Will and, therefore also, the petitioner has no locus standi in Permission Case No. 01/2006 - 07 and, therefore, this petition may be dismissed by this Court.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) The State Government is an owner of the property in question, as well as the lessor of the property. (ii) The State Government has initially given the lease for 30 years to one Shri Mukunda Lal Biswas. Lease has expired and the lessee has also expired. (iii) It appears that Mukunda Lal Biswas was having two sons and three daughters. Two sons applied for renewal of the lease. It is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the three daughters have given no objection, to their brothers namely Ranjit Kumar Biswas and Bishwanath Biswas for renewal of the lease. (iv) It appears from the facts of the case that the Government has renewed the lease for further period of 30 years in favour of two sons of Mukunda Lal Biswas namely Ranjit Kumar Biswas and Bishwanath Biswas. Lease was never renewed in favour of three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas. (v) It also appears that thereafter, Ranjit Kumar Biswas has expired and left out lessee, Bishwanath Biswas executed a Will dated 29th August, 2002 and he thereafter expired on 6th June, 2005. The petitioner claims to be the beneficiary of the said Will and he wants to step into the shoes of lessee for the remaining period of the lease and, therefore, he has applied for probate bearing Probate Case No. 8/2007, which is pending before learned District Judge, Palamau. (vi) It appears that meanwhile three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas had preferred an application bearing Permission Case No. 01/2006 -07 before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj for getting permission for selling away the property. It appears that no lease was renewed in their favour and even otherwise also legal heir of the lessee can not apply for selling of the property. As there was no lease in favour of the three daughters of Mukunda Lal Biswas, there is also no question whatsoever arise of the sale of lease hold rights by them. (vii) Looking to the pendency of Probate Case No. 8/2007 before learned District Judge, Palamau, preferred by the present petitioner on the basis of the Will dated 29th August, 2002, there is no right vested in the petitioner to be heard in the Permission Case No. 01/2006 -07 nor the name of the petitioner has been entered into the revenue records. In this set of circumstances, the petitioner has no locus standi in Permission Case No. 01/2006 -07. ;