BASANTI KUMARI SETHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 1.7.2000 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Transfer Permission case No. 29/1992 -93 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for grant of prior permission for the transfer of the land in question and directed for resumption of the lease hold property.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' case is that Ganpat Rai Sethi, their grand father, was granted a building lease in respect of an area of 2.75 acres of land bearing holding No. 87 situated at village, Sarlay in the town of Hazaribagh. On the death of the original lessee, the lease was renewed in favour of Hira Lall Sethi and Panna Lall Sethi in terms of a registered indenture for the period of 30 years i.e., from 1.4.1978 to 31.3.2008. Petitioners ' further case is that both the lessees filed a joint application before respondent No. 3 for transfer of 30 decimals of lease hold property in favour of five different persons which application was registered as Transfer Permission case No. 29/1992 -93 in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the sale deeds for determination of the market rate of the land in question. Petitioner said to have deposited 50% of the amount required to be deposited for the purpose of grant of permission. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh recommended for grant of prior permission in favour of the petitioner and sent the file to the Commissioner for final order. The Commissioner, in his turn, passed the impugned order rejecting the application for grant of prior permission and also directed for resumption of the lease hold property. By the said order the Deputy Commissioner has been directed to take steps for resumption of the entire lease hold property.

(3.) MR . P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that when the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements for transfer of the lease hold interest, the same could not have been refused by the Commissioner. Learned Counsel mainly assailed that part of the order by which the Commissioner, while refusing to grant permission to transfer the lease hold land, also directed for resumption of the land. According to the learned Counsel the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to direct for the resumption of the land in arbitrary manner.