PHIROZ NARIMAN KUTAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.2.2003, marked as Annexure -10, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on the basis of the direction issued by this Court to pass a speaking order in WP (C) No. 88 of 2002. By that order, the Deputy Commissioner has restrained the petitioners from continuing the construction of a new building in place of the old building situated in Holding Nos. 9 and 10. Earlier, the Deputy Commissioner had directed the stopping of the construction by notice dated 17.4.2002. It was then that the writ petitioners filed the writ petition, W.P. (c) No. 88 of 2002 questioning that notice and this Court directed that the petitioners be heard and an order passed. It was thereafter that the present order impugned was passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) THE property was a part of the property that was held by the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (TISCO) on lease under the Government. The TISCO had sub -leased the land in question to one Phiroz Kutar on 13.12.1962; it was for a term of thirty years. On the death of Phiroz Kutar in the year 1969, the sub -leasehold devolved on Mrs. Khorshed Phiroz Kutar. On 30.10.1985, according to the petitioners, Mrs. Khorshed Phiroz Kutar applied to the TISCO to add the name of her grand sons Phiroz Nariman Kutar and her nephew Behram Aibara also as joint lessees with her. According to the petitioners, that request was accepted by the TISCO. Subsequently, Mrs, Khorshed Phiroz Kutar died and it is claimed that the lease hold stood in the joint names of her grand son and nephew as sub lessees in the records of TISCO. The term of thirty years expired on 13.12.1992. On 28.2.1995, TISCO renewed the sub lease with writ petitioners 1 and 2 till 31.12.1995, This was for the reason that the lease in favour of the TISCO itself was to expire by that date. After the period of the lease in favour of the TISCO expired on 31.12.1995, disputes cropped up between the State and the TISCO regarding the renewal of the lease. The dispute is still pending and is the subject matter of a contempt of Court proceedings in this Court. Thus, as on today, there is no subsisting lease in favour of the TISCO in respect of the entire extent of which the property in question forms a part.

(3.) WE find that the term of the lease of TISCO has expired. The question of renewal of that lease is pending. No doubt, the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act may have application. On behalf of the petitioners, Section 7E of the Act was referred to as protecting sub -lessees. But then, that stand of the petitioners is questioned seriously by the learned Additional Advocate General who appears for the respondents. What ever it be, we do not think that it would be proper for us to pronounce on these aspects at this stage. Suffice it to say that the question whether the petitioners are entitled to have a renewal of the sub -lease, and whether they are entitled to alter the character of the land and whether they are entitled to put up a new construction according to their volition are questions that have to be considered. What the Deputy Commissioner has now done by the impugned order is only to direct the petitioners to maintain the status quo until the question of renewal of the lease between the State Government and TISCO is finally decided and the rights and obligations of TISCO are crystallized. In other words, whether in respect of the land under sub -lessee, TISCO would be in a position to renew the sub -lease, would also be a question that may depend upon the terms of the ultimate settlement arrived at between the State Government and TISCO or on the terms of the renewal of the lease granted by the State Government to TISCO (of course, the concept of lease was only a fiction created on the coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act).