IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2994 of 2008
Nilesh Kumar Pandey ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ... Respondents
.............
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
.............
For the Petitioner Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad
For the Respondents J.C. to S.C (L & C)
.............
4/ Dated: 17th of July, 2009
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.
2
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.
3. 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
3
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.
4. 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.
4
(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.
5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons,
there is no substance in this petition and, hence, the same is
hereby dismissed.
6. At the same time, I hereby direct the Deputy
Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj (respondent no. 2) to
dispose of the Permission Case No. 01/2006-07 as expeditiously
as possible, practicable, preferably and in accordance with law
and keeping in mind the rights of lessee and also keeping in
mind, who are the lessees.
7. The petition is, hereby, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay/