P and M Infrastructure Ltd Through Its Authorised Representative Mr Vijay Nath Mishra Vs. Revenue Department - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/10524
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnDec-17-2014
AppellantP and M Infrastructure Ltd Through Its Authorised Representative Mr Vijay Nath Mishra
RespondentRevenue Department
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi w.p.(c) no. 6138 of 2012 xlri school of business and human resources through  its secretary, jamshedpur, east singhbhum … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6139 of 2012 xlri school of business and human resources through  its secretary, jamshedpur, east singhbhum … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6163 of 2012 jamshedpur utilities and services company ltd. through its deputy general manager (legal),  jamshedpur, east singhbhum ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6165 of 2012 2 premium residency pvt. ltd., kolkata through one  of its director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum...… petitioner  versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6176 of 2012 ashiana housing limited through its manager (legal and land), adityapur,  ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6177 of 2012 parikh inn pvt. ltd.  through its director,  jamshedpur, east singhbhum ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6199 of 2012 p & m infrastructure ltd. through its authorised  representative, patliputra, patna ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand  2. the principal secretary, revenue & land reforms 3     department, govt. of jharkhand, ranchi 3. the deputy secretary, revenue and land reforms     department, government of jharkhand, ranchi 4. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan) division,      chaibasa 5. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur 6. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6205 of 2012 anil chopra , jamshedpur, east singhbhum ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6230 of 2012 gian taneja, m/s super centre, bistupur,  jamshedpur, east singhbhum ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6243 of 2012 hi tech heritage limited through its director, kolkata (west bengal) ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,  4     jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6257 of 2012 center for inner resources development, through  its authorised representative, jamshedpur … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6287 of 2012 1. jawahar lal vig 2. harish kumar vig ... … petitioners versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents  with  w.p.(c) no. 6292 of 2012 1. raghubir singh bhatia 2. smt. aruna taneja ... … petitioners versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6305 of 2012 5 1. jayantilal badiyani  2. manoharlal badiyani 3. pravin kr. badiyani 4. deepak badiyani … … petitioners versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6319 of 2012 m/s kumar inn pvt ltd ., bistupur,   jamshedpur, east singhbhum ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan), chaibasa,  3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur  4. additional deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,     jamshedpur 5. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 6320 of 2012 m/s bindal buildon pvt. ltd. through its managing director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan), chaibasa,  3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur 4. additional deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,     jamshedpur 5. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents  with  w.p.(c) no. 6671 of 2012 m/s rishiraj homes pvt. ltd. through its managing  6 director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan), chaibasa,  3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur 4. additional deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,     jamshedpur 5. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents  with  w.p.(c) no. 6681 of 2012 kaushal kanchan construction pvt. ltd. through  its managing director, jamshedpur,  ... … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan), chaibasa,  3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur 4. additional deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,     jamshedpur 5. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 1244 of 2013 jamshedpur cold storage pvt. ltd. through its  director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal      secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents with  w.p.(c) no. 1909 of 2013 m/s steel strips wheels limited through its  general manager (manufacturing) and  authorised signatory, jamshedpur … petitioner versus 1. the state of jharkhand through the principal  7     secretary, revenue & land reforms department,      government of jharkhand, ranchi 2. the commissioner, singhbhum (kolhan),      chaibasa, west singhbhum 3. the deputy commissioner, east singhbhum,      jamshedpur, east singhbhum 4. m/s tata steel ltd. through its managing      director, jamshedpur, east singhbhum... … respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice shree chandrashekhar ­­­­­ for the petitioners     : mr. a.k. ganguli, sr. advocate   mr. abhijeet sinha, advocate   mr. indrajit sinha, advocate   mr. arjit mazumdar, advocate   mr. ajay kumar sah, advocate   mr. krishanu ray, advocate (in wpc no. 6163 of 2012)   mr. jaideep gupta, sr. advocate   mr. abhijeet sinha, advocate   mr. indrajit sinha, advocate   mr. arjit mazumdar, advocate   mr. ajay kumar sah, advocate   mr. krishanu ray, advocate   (in wpc no. 6138 & 6139 of 2012)    mr. debal banerjee, advocate    mr. indrajit sinha, advocate (in wpc no. 6176 of 2012)  ms. aprajita singh, advocate     mr. vinay prakash, advocate (in wpc no. 6199 of 2012)  mr. indrajit sinha, advocate    mr. ajay kumar sah, advocate    mr. krishanu ray, advocate       (in all other matters)      for the respondent­state : mr. ajit kumar, aag    mr. saket upadhyay, j.c. to aag ­­­­­ order no: 19 dated: 17.12.2014 batch   of   writ   petitions   seeking   quashing   of   letters  dated   17.09.2012   and   21.09.2012   have   been   filed   by   the  8 petitioners claiming themselves sub­lessees with respect to a part  of   land   under   indenture   of   lease   dated   20.08.2005.   since   a  common question of law is involved in all the writ petitions, with  the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, all the writ  petitions   have   been   heard   together   and   are   disposed   of   by   a  common order. when the matter was taken up for hearing, mr.  ajit   kumar,   the   learned   additional   advocate­general   raised   an  objection   that   a   copy   of   the   rejoinder   affidavit   filed   by   the  respondent­m/s tata steel limited has been served only yesterday  and   therefore,   he   needs   time   for   filing   reply   to   the   same.   the  counsel for the petitioners raised serious objection to the prayer  for   adjournment   and   submitted   that   in   view   of   previous   order  passed by this court, the matter may be heard today. mr. binod  kanth, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent­ m/s tata steel limited stated at bar that the rejoinder affidavit  filed by m/s tata steel limited may be ignored.  2. briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to issuance  of letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 are summarised thus;  a memorandum of agreement was signed between the provincial  government   and   m/s   tata   steel   limited   on   08.07.1909   with  respect to an area of 3564.63 acres of land. about 3564.63 acres  of land was acquired by the erstwhile government under the land  acquisition act, 1894, out of which an area of 3509.90 acres was  conveyed to m/s tata steel limited through a deed of conveyance  registered on 19.01.1912. thereafter, memoranda of agreements  dated 09.07.1918 and 18.10.1919 were also signed between the  parties.   after   the   memoranda   of   agreements   dated   09.07.1918  and   18.10.1919   were   signed   between   the   parties,   a   deed   of  conveyance with respect to 12214.74 acres of land was executed  in favour of m/s tata steel limited. the total land thus conveyed,  in absolute ownership, in favour of m/s tata steel limited was  15,725.05 acres. m/s tata steel limited constructed a steel plant  9 and developed a planned township in the vicinity. after the state  government initiated proceedings under the bihar land reforms  act, 1950, a series of litigations ensued which ultimately ended in  insertion of sections 7d and 7e in the bihar land reforms act.  thereafter, an agreement of lease was executed by the erstwhile  state of bihar in favour of m/s tata steel limited on 04.08.1984  and  subsequently,   an  indenture  of lease  dated 01.08.1985 was  executed in favour of m/s tata steel limited. initially, the lease  was   executed   for   a   period   of   40   years   with   effect   from  01.01.1956, with a provision for further extension for a period of  30 years, at the option of m/s tata steel limited. after the said  period   of   lease   expired   on   31.12.1995,   m/s   tata   steel   limited  exercised its option for renewal by letter dated 03.08.1995. the  state of jharkhand extended the period of lease for another 30  years by executing an indenture of lease which was registered on  20.08.2005. by a deeming provision incorporated in section 7e of  the   act   of   1950,   the   leases   granted   by   m/s   tata   steel   limited  were recognised as sub­leases, on payment of fair and equitable  rent,   on   terms   and   conditions   to   be   settled   by   the   state  government.   the   indenture   of   lease   dated   20.08.2005   also  contained a similar provision for sub­lease of land by m/s tata  steel limited in favour of any person, with the prior approval of  the   lessor,   that   is,   the   state   government   and   a   provision   is  incorporated in clause 8 of the lease­deed. vide resolution dated  06.12.2005, an appropriate machinery committee was set up by  the state of jharkhand for expeditious disposal of cases of sub­ lease   in   terms   of   cabinet   decision   dated   19.08.2005.   the  petitioners   submitted   applications   to   m/s   tata   steel   limited   to  allot and/or sub­lease a piece of land in the area held by m/s tata  steel limited under the indenture of lease dated 20.08.2005. m/s  tata   steel   limited   forwarded   the   proposals   to   the   appropriate  machinery committee and the proposals were considered by the  10 appropriate   machinery   committee   in   its   meeting   held   on  09.03.2007.   after   the   approval   of   the   proposals   by   the  appropriate machinery committee, the respondent­m/s tata steel  limited   requested   the   deputy   commissioner,   east   singhbhum,  jamshedpur to process the proposals for seeking approval of the  state government. the state government granted its approval on  certain terms and conditions and communicated the same to the  deputy  commissioner,  east  singhbhum  and  the  same   has  been  communicated to the petitioners also. the petitioners were put in  possession and agreement for sub­leases were executed between  m/s tata steel limited and some of the petitioners on different  dates. the petitioners thereafter, paid rent for each financial year,  though under protest, to m/s tata steel limited. the petitioners  thereafter,   took   necessary   steps   for   construction   over   the   land  covered   under   the   sub­lease   and   in   many   cases   substantial  construction has been completed. the necessary details in all the  writ petitions are detailed below: sl. case no. date & communication date of purpose of sub area payment no. letter of of approval by possession lease in and amount approval deputy (dop)/ date of acres paid (in commissioner agreement for rupees) sub-lease 1. w.p.c. no. 3465/ra 10.10.2008 dop:31.01.09 extension of 4.89 year:2008. 6138 of dated educational 09 amount:2012. 26.09.08 institute 9,53,550.00 2. w.p.c. no. 3281/ra 26.09.2006 dop:31.01.09 extension of 6.80 year:2006. 6139 of dated educational 07 amount:2012. 18.09.06 institute 13,26,000.00 3. w.p.c. no. 1719/ra 05.06.2008 dop:24.06.08 shopping mall 5.46 year:2008. 6163 of dated dasl: multiples 09 amount:2012. 15.05.08 14.08.08 55,96,500.00 4. w.p.c. no. 757/ra 28.02.08 dop:04.03.08 hotel 1.96 year:2007. 6165 of dated dasl:08. amount:2012. 26.02.08 14.06.08 7,47,250.00 5. w.p.c. no. 3858/ra 01.12.08 dop:02.01.09 shopping mall 2.00 year:2008. 6176 of dated dasl: multiplex and 09 amount:2012. 17.11.08 07.10.09 hotel 8,37,500.00 6. w.p.c. no. 3545/ra 03.11.08 dop:14.01.09 convention 1.00 year:2008. 6177 of dated dasl: centre 09 amount:2012. 16.10.08 02.05.11 4,18,750.00 7. w.p.c. 1844/ra 19.06.2006 dop:27.08.07 multiplex 3.12 year:2007. no.6199 of dated 08 amount:2012. 08.06.07 31,98,000.00 11 8. w.p.c. no. 3544/ra 06.11.08 dop:13.12.08 banquet hall 0.60 year:2008. 6205 of dated 09 amount:2012. 15.10.08 2,62,500.00 9. w.p.c. 2575/ra 05.07.08 dop:27.08.08 multi level 0.21 year:2008. no.6230 of dated parking retail and 09 amount:2012. 27.06.08 hotel 2,15,250.00 10. w.p.c. no. 4239/ra 16/17.01.08 dop:10.03.08 shopping mall, 2.00 year:2007. 6243 of dated multiples and 08 amount:2012. 31.12.07 hotel 7,62,500.00 11. w.p.c. no. 2560/ra 14.07.08 dop:23.07.08 for construction 0.75 year:2008. 6257 of dated of religious 09 amount:2012. 26.06.08 educational 1,14,375.00 institution 12. w.p.c. no. 1959/ra 12.06.08 dop:06.09.08 commercial and 0.104 year:2008. 6287 of dated (note:the parking purpose 09 amount:2012. 02.06.08 petitioner is in 1,06,600.00 fact in possession of the premises since 25.02.1963 13. w.p.c. 2576/ra -------- dop:26.09.08 commercial and 0.10 year:2008. no.6292 of dated (the petitioner parking purpose 09 amount:2012. 27.06.08 is in fact in 1,02,500.00 possession of the premises since 1962-63) 14. w.p.c. no. 192/ra 28.02.09 dop:10.04.09 commercial and 0.123 year:2009. 6305 of dated parking 10 amount:2012. 22.01.09 dasl:1. 41,450.00 06.07.09 (the petitioner is in fact in possession of the premises since 01.02.1964 15. w.p.c. no. 12564/ra 02.07.2008 dop:05.08.08 hotel 0.60 year:2008. 6319 of dated 09 amount:2012. 26.06.08 2,51,250.00 16. w.p.c. no. 2577/ra 05.07.08 dop:08.09.08 commercial 2.00 year:2008. 6320 of dated complex 09 amount:2012. 27.6.08 8,37,500.00 17. w.p.c. 3142/ra 14.08.08 dop:17.11.08 multiplex 1.75 year:2008. no.6671 of dated shopping mall 09 amount:2012. 01.08.08 7,32,812.00 18. wpc no. 2026/ra 21.06.08 dop:29.08.08 multiplex-cum- 3.64 year:2008. 6681 of dated it park 09 2012 11.06.08 amount:15. 24,250.00 19. w.p.c. no. 2595/ra 05.07.08 dop:27.08.08 cold storage 0.62 year:2008. 1244 of dated dasl:09. amount:2013. 28.06.08 16.06.09 2,59,625.00 20. w.p.c. no. 2530/ra 14.08.06 dop:12.02.07 factory 10.09 year:2006. 1909 of dated dasl:07. amount:2013. 03.08.06 14.06.08 29,63,938.00 3. in   the   counter­affidavit,   the   respondent­state   of  jharkhand   took   similar   stand   in   all   the   cases   stating   that   for  12 examining   the   irregularity   in   the   matter   of   sub­leases   to   the  petitioners and others and for examining the loss of government  revenue,   the   government   got   the   matter   enquired   into   by  member, board of revenue, jharkhand who submitted his report  indicating certain irregularity and loss of revenue. in view of the  report of the member, board of revenue, the government directed  vide   letter   dated   17.09.2012   to   ensure   that   the   geographical  condition of the lands in question does not change. m/s tata steel  limited vide letter dated 22.09.2012, sent a compliance report to  the deputy commissioner. it is stated that the recommendation  for   sub­leases   is   under   enquiry   and   therefore,   the   state  government   has   rightly   issued   directions   for   stoppage   of  construction work.  4. a   rejoinder   to   the   counter­affidavit   of   the respondent­state of jharkhand has been filed by the petitioner(s)  denying that the state of jharkhand is the paramount owner of  the   land   in   question.   it   is   stated   that   the   respondent­state   of  jharkhand in its capacity as a lessor is bound by the procedure  laid down in the lease­deed with regard to grant of sub­leases.  the   report   dated   12.10.2010   is   illegal   and   without   jurisdiction  and   any   action   taken   in   pursuance   thereof   also   must   be   held  illegal   and   without   jurisdiction.   in   absence   of   any   statutory  provisions or the rules, an anonymous complain cannot be made  basis for conducting an enquiry. even if it is assumed that there  has been some irregularity in the matter of grant of sub­leases,  that by itself does not make the grant of approval in favour of the  petitioners,   illegal   or   unlawful.   the   plea   that   the   state  government suffered revenue loss is baseless and unfounded as  the rent sought to be realised from each sub­lessee is in terms of  government's   own   policy   decision.   sections   7d   and   7e  contemplate   grant   of   sub­lease   for   industrial,   commercial,  residential   or   for   such   other   purposes   on   payment   of   fair   and  13 equitable   rent.  the  action  of the state  government  is not  only  arbitrary, harsh and disproportionate, it follows civil consequences  including   severe   financial   losses,   without   any   opportunity   of  hearing to the petitioners.  5.  a   counter­affidavit   has   been   filed   on   behalf   of  respondent   m/s   tata   steel   limited   stating   that   the lease­deed recognised that, “for the development of the town and  for the supply and maintenance of services, aforesaid and diverse  civic amenities to the town of jamshedpur, the lessee incurred a  huge   expenditure   and   the   burden   of   a   large   deficit   after   the  recovery made from the recipients of the services” and therefore,  the   state   thought   it   necessary   in   public   interest   that,   “the  development and services should continue to be undertaken and  rendered   by   the   lessee   as   hitherto   at   its   cost   and   mode   of  management and realisation of charges for services so rendered in  the   manner   followed   so   far”.   in   clause   17  of   the   indenture   of  lease, the services of municipal nature has been assigned to the  respondent­m/s tata steel limited. m/s tata steel limited enjoys  discretionary   right   to   propose   further   sub­letting   of   the   vacant  land to various categories of utilisation, in  consonance  with all  round development of the town. after the last renewal, m/s tata  steel limited revisited the requirement of town and accordingly,  forwarded   proposals   for   sub­leases   for   setting   up   malls   and  multiplexes which were approved by the state government. the  report dated 12.10.2010 is full of infirmities and illegalities. the  findings, conclusions and suggestions in report dated 12.10.2010  are   based   on   non­existent   facts   and   assumptions.   letters   dated  22.09.2012 and other 56 letters, all dated 13.10.2012 as well as  letter dated 28.10.2012 were issued to m/s tata steel limited and  the   petitioners   to   which   m/s   tata   steel   limited   gave   a  comprehensive reply on different issues raised in the said letters.  again, vide letter dated 03.11.2012, m/s tata steel limited has  14 furnished separate replies to all 56 letters.  6. heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.  7. mr.   a.k.   ganguli,   the   learned   senior   counsel  appearing in w.p.(c) no. 6163 of 2012, after tracing the history  how indenture of lease dated 20.08.2005 came to be executed,  submits that the bone of contention in the present batch of writ  petitions is power of m/s tata steel limited to grant sub­leases, a  power incorporated in clause 8 of the said indenture of lease.  stressing on the words “necessary” and “any person”, the learned  senior  counsel   submitted that  the  right  conferred  on  m/s tata  steel   limited   to   sub­lease   any   portion   of   the   vacant   land   is  subject to prior approval of the state government which, in turn,  is   required   to   settle   the   terms   of   the   sub­lease   only.   when m/s tata steel limited with a view to cater the present day need  of the residents of jamshedpur decided to part with a portion of  land to the petitioners and the proposals for sub­leases in favour  of   the   petitioners   were   considered   by   a   5­member   appropriate  machinery   committee   and   the   proposal   of   the   appropriate  machinery   committee   was   approved   by   the   state   government,  the   state   government   is   precluded   from   issuing   directions   for  seizure of the construction  activities, without issuing show­cause  notice to the petitioners. it is further submitted that the letters  dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 were issued 6 years after the  allotments were proposed and about 4 years after the same were  approved   by   the   state   government   and   in   the   meantime,   the  petitioners raised substantial construction by investing huge funds  and thus, the least what was required in the matter was to issue a  show­cause notice to the petitioners.  8. mr.   jaideep   gupta,   the   learned   senior   counsel  appearing for the petitioner­xlri school of business and human  resources   in   w.p.(c)   no.   6138   of   2012   submits   that   a 15 lessee/sub­lessee has a right in law to enjoy the property to the  exclusion of all others, during the term of the lease. recounting  the   events   leading   to   putting   the   petitioners   in   possession,   the  learned   senior   counsel   submitted   that   on   a   mere   figment   of  imagination of the alleged irregularity, the directions issued under  letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 cannot be issued by the  state   government.   contending   that   the   action   of   the respondent­state   of   jharkhand   is   completely   arbitrary,   it   is  submitted   that   even   in   contractual   matters,   the   state   is   not  relieved of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of  article 14 of the constitution. it is submitted that the agreement  for sub­lease has been executed between m/s tata steel limited  and  the   petitioners and thus, the  respondent­authorities cannot  restrain the petitioners from exercising their leasehold rights. it is  further submitted that the impugned communications suffer from  non­application of mind in as much as, individual cases were not  examined   to   ascertain   whether   the   proposal/approval   for   sub­ lease is tainted by extraneous considerations or misrepresentation.  9. mr.   debal   banerjee,   the   learned   senior   counsel  appearing for the petitioner­ashiana housing and finance india  limited in w.p.(c) no. 6176 of 2012 submitted that the petitioner  has also raised substantial construction and the direction not to  continue   further   construction   has   caused   serious   injury   to   the  petitioner.  10. ms. aparajita singh, the learned counsel appearing for  the petitioner­p & n infrastructure in w.p.(c) no. 6199 of 2012,  submits that the petitioner has taken huge loan for construction of  multiplexes   and   it   is   incurring   huge   interest   thereon.   due   to  prohibition in interim order dated 07.03.2013 not to create any  third   party   interest,   the   petitioner   is   not   able   to   enter   into   an  agreement to sale, so as to realise a part of the loan amount from  the   intending   purchasers.   the   direction   contained   in   the  16 impugned letters prohibiting further construction has resulted in  huge   financial   loss   to   the   petitioner   on   account   of   mounting  interest   on   the   loan   amount.   she   has   further   submitted   that  agreement for sub­lease in favour of the petitioner is a registered  instrument and it has the effect of a sub­lease, in law and thus,  the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of its lessor which is the  lessee under the indenture of lease dated 20.08.2005. since no  action   in   terms   of   clause   24   of   the   indenture   of   lease   dated  20.08.2005 has been taken, the respondent­state of jharkhand is  not justified in issuing letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012.  11.  as   against   the   above,   mr.   ajit   kumar,   the   learned  additional   advocate­general   refers   to   various   clauses   of  indenture   of   lease   dated   20.8.2005   and   submits   that   in   the lease­deed  itself,   several  categories   of   land  have   been   specified  and   the   purpose   for   which   different   categories   of   land   can   be  utilised has also been provided however, the proposals for grant of sub­lease in favour of the petitioners which has been forwarded,  are not in consonance with the object and purpose mentioned in  the   indenture   of   lease.   referring   to   clause   8,   the   learned  additional   advocate­general   submitted   that   under   clause   8, m/s tata steel limited can make proposal in respect of “vacant  lands” only and any such proposal is subject to the prior approval  of   the   state   government.   upon   enquiry,   when   certain  irregularities were detected, the impugned letters were issued to  ensure that the geographical condition of the lands in question is  maintained. it is further submitted that the state is the paramount  owner of the leased land and approval for the sub­lease has to be  accorded   by   the   revenue   and   land   reforms   department.   the  approval communicated to the petitioners is not the government  decision   in   terms   of   article   166   of   the   constitution   of   india.  moreover, the state government has every right to review its own  decision in the interest of the state. since the allocation of land in  17 favour of the petitioners appears to be   contrary to the terms of  indenture   of  lease, before  taking any action  in  the  matter, the  respondent­state of jharkhand has rightly directed the petitioners  not to raise further constructions. it is further submitted that the  right of the state, being the paramount owner, to conduct enquiry  in the matter for ascertaining the purpose for which proposal for  grant of sub­lease has been made, cannot be questioned.  12. in reply, on behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that  the right of the state to conduct an enquiry in the matter is, in  fact,   not   disputed   by   the   petitioners.   however,   the   manner   in  which the impugned orders contained in letters dated 17.09.2012  and 21.09.2012 have been issued, affecting the valuable rights of  the petitioners, has been questioned in the present proceeding.  13. i   have   carefully   considered   the   submissions   of   the  counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.  14. from the affidavits filed in the present proceeding, i  gather that there is no dispute in so far as, the recommendation of  appropriate   machinery   committee   forwarded   to   the   state  government, is concerned. the learned aag has submitted that  the communication of the approval of the state government for  sub­lease   in   favour   of   the   petitioners  has   been   disputed   by   the  respondent­state   of   jharkhand,   on   the   ground   that   the   said  communication was not the decision of the government. however,  i   find   that   it   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   petitioners  were   put   in  possession and in several cases, substantial construction has been  raised.   the   direction   not   to   carry   further   construction   would  necessarily   followed   civil   consequences   to   the   petitioners.   in  “mohinder singh gill & anr. vs. chief election commissioner, new   delhi & ors.”,  (1978) 1 scc 405, the constitution bench of the  hon'ble   supreme   court   held   that,   “civil   consequence”   covers  infraction   of not   merely property or personal rights but of civil  18 liberties, material deprivations and non­pecuniary damages also. it  is   well   settled   as   a   fundamental   rule   of   law   that,   no   decision  should be taken which will affect the right of a person without  first   being   informed   of   the   case   and   giving   an   opportunity   of  hearing. in “state of orissa v. (miss) binapani dei”, reported in air   1967 sc 1269, it has been held that even an administrative order  or decision, in matters involving civil consequences, must be made  consistent with rules of natural justice. in “canara bank & ors. vs.   debasis das & ors.”, reported in  (2003) 4 scc 557, the hon'ble  supreme court has observed thus,  14.  the   expressions   “natural   justice”   and   “legal   justice” do not present a watertight classification. it is   the substance of justice which is to be secured by both,   and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn   purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice.   natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary   technicality,   grammatical   pedantry   or   logical   prevarication. it supplies the omissions of a formulated   law. as lord buckmaster said, no form or procedure   should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of   a litigant’s defence. 15.  the adherence to principles of natural justice as   recognized   by   all   civilized   states   is   of   supreme   importance   when   a   quasi­judicial   body   embarks   on   determining   disputes   between   the   parties,   or   any   administrative action involving civil consequences is in   issue. these principles are well settled.…............thus,   it is but essential that a party should be put on notice   of the case before any adverse order is passed against   him. this is one of the most important principles of   natural justice. it is after all an approved rule of fair   play. the concept has gained significance and shades   with time...................”.15. in   the   writ   petitions,   the   petitioners   have   taken   a  specific   plea   that   without   affording  opportunity  of   hearing,  the  impugned   letters   were   issued   by   the   respondent­state   of  jharkhand. in the rejoinder affidavit to the counter­affidavit filed  by the state, the plea of violation of rules of natural justice has  again   been   reiterated   by   the   petitioners.   to   a   pointed   query,  19 whether   any   action   in   terms   of   clause   24   of   the   indenture   of  lease dated 20.08.2005 has been taken by the state or not, the  learned additional advocate­general submitted that the matter is  still at the stage of enquiry and though, he sought information  from the concerned authorities, immediately after the last hearing  of   the   cases,   he   has   received   no   instructions   in   the   matter.  however, it is contended that the petitioners have no right in law  and   therefore,   they   are   not   entitled   for   grant   of   hearing.   it   is  further   contended   that   there   is   no   sub­lease   existing   in   their  favour   and   therefore,   the   contention   that   they   are   entitled   for  peaceful enjoyment of the property till the currency of the sub­ leases, is liable to be rejected.  16. i am of the opinion that in so far as, the right of the  state   government   to   conduct   an   enquiry   in   the   matter   and  examine the proposal for grant of sub­leases are concerned, the  same cannot be challenged by the petitioners however, there is no  dispute that the direction to maintain status­quo and thus, not to  raise   further   construction,  has  been  issued  without   hearing  the  petitioners.   though   certain   apprehensions   were   expressed   on  behalf   of   the   petitioners   and   the   learned   counsel   for   the  respondent­m/s tata steel limited asserted that it is the company  which is the absolute owner of the lands in question, the broad  consensus among the learned counsel for the petitioners is that  while permitting the state to conduct an enquiry in the matter, a  time   schedule   may   be   prescribed   and   the   petitioners   also   be  afforded an opportunity of hearing. mr. ajit kumar, the learned  additional advocate­general submits that during the period the  enquiry   is   to   be   completed,   if   the   petitioners   are   permitted   to  create third party rights, it may lead to serious complications in  future and therefore, the interim order dated 07.03.2013 may be  extended   till   the   conclusion   of   the   enquiry.   the   apprehension  expressed on behalf of the state of jharkhand is misplaced and  20 founded   on   ignorance   of   settled   principles   of   law.   in   the   first  place,   there   is   no   restriction   in   the   impugned   letters   dated  17.09.2012   and   21.09.2012   prohibiting   the   petitioners   from  creating third party rights. it is also well settled that an alienation  of right, title or interest in the property would be binding only to  the extent of right conferred upon the lessee/sub­lessee.  17. accordingly,   without   entering   into   the   merits   of   the  matter,  the   writ   petitions are  allowed to the  extent that, if the  state government decides to conduct an enquiry in the matter,  the   same   must   be   completed  on   or   before  31.03.2015  and  the  petitioners would be given individual notices. it is further ordered  that the petitioners and m/s tata steel limited would furnish all  required informations, if any, sought by the state government and  they would co­operate in expeditious conclusion of the enquiry.  in   case,   the   state     government   takes   an   adverse   decision,   the  same would be communicated to the petitioners with a copy of  the enquiry report.   18. the   writ   petitions   are   disposed   of,   in   the   aforesaid  terms.19. i.a. no. 769 of 2014 in w.p.(c) no. 6163 of 2012,  i.a.  no. 653 of 2014 in w.p.(c) no. 6176 of 2012, i.a. no. 6633 of  2013 & i.a. no. 4198 of 2014 in w.p.(c) no. 6199 of 2012, i.a.  no. 3192 of 2013 in w.p.(c) no. 6305 of 2012  and i.a. no. 756 of  2014 in w.p.(c) no. 6320 of 2012  stand disposed of.         (shree chandrashekhar, j.) manish/a.f.r.  
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6138 of 2012 XLRI School of Business and Human Resources through  its Secretary, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6139 of 2012 XLRI School of Business and Human Resources through  its Secretary, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6163 of 2012 Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company Ltd. through its Deputy General Manager (Legal),  Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6165 of 2012 2 Premium Residency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata through one  of its Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum...… Petitioner  Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6176 of 2012 Ashiana Housing Limited through its Manager (Legal and Land), Adityapur,  ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6177 of 2012 Parikh Inn Pvt. Ltd.  through its Director,  Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012 P & M Infrastructure Ltd. through its authorised  representative, Patliputra, Patna ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand  2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms 3     Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms     Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division,      Chaibasa 5. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur 6. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6205 of 2012 Anil Chopra , Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6230 of 2012 Gian Taneja, M/s Super Centre, Bistupur,  Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6243 of 2012 Hi Tech Heritage Limited through its Director, Kolkata (West Bengal) ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,  4     Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6257 of 2012 Center For Inner Resources Development, through  its authorised representative, Jamshedpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6287 of 2012 1. Jawahar Lal Vig 2. Harish Kumar Vig ... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents  with  W.P.(C) No. 6292 of 2012 1. Raghubir Singh Bhatia 2. Smt. Aruna Taneja ... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6305 of 2012 5 1. Jayantilal Badiyani  2. Manoharlal Badiyani 3. Pravin Kr. Badiyani 4. Deepak Badiyani … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6319 of 2012 M/s Kumar Inn Pvt Ltd ., Bistupur,   Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa,  3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur  4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,     Jamshedpur 5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 6320 of 2012 M/s Bindal Buildon Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa,  3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur 4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,     Jamshedpur 5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents  with  W.P.(C) No. 6671 of 2012 M/s Rishiraj Homes Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing  6 Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa,  3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur 4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,     Jamshedpur 5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents  with  W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2012 Kaushal Kanchan Construction Pvt. Ltd. through  its Managing Director, Jamshedpur,  ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa,  3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur 4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,     Jamshedpur 5. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 1244 of 2013 Jamshedpur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. through its  Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal      Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents with  W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2013 M/s Steel Strips Wheels Limited through its  General Manager (Manufacturing) and  Authorised Signatory, Jamshedpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal  7     Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,      Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan),      Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,      Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 4. M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through its Managing      Director, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum... … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ­­­­­ For the Petitioners     : Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate   Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate   Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate   Mr. Arjit Mazumdar, Advocate   Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate   Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate (In WPC No. 6163 of 2012)   Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate   Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate   Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate   Mr. Arjit Mazumdar, Advocate   Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate   Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate   (In WPC No. 6138 & 6139 of 2012)    Mr. Debal Banerjee, Advocate    Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (In WPC No. 6176 of 2012)  Ms. Aprajita Singh, Advocate     Mr. Vinay Prakash, Advocate (In WPC No. 6199 of 2012)  Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate    Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate    Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate       (In all other matters)      For the Respondent­State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, AAG    Mr. Saket Upadhyay, J.C. to AAG ­­­­­ Order No: 19 Dated: 17.12.2014 Batch   of   writ   petitions   seeking   quashing   of   letters  dated   17.09.2012   and   21.09.2012   have   been   filed   by   the  8 petitioners claiming themselves sub­lessees with respect to a part  of   land   under   Indenture   of   Lease   dated   20.08.2005.   Since   a  common question of law is involved in all the writ petitions, with  the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, all the writ  petitions   have   been   heard   together   and   are   disposed   of   by   a  common order. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.  Ajit   Kumar,   the   learned   Additional   Advocate­General   raised   an  objection   that   a   copy   of   the   rejoinder   affidavit   filed   by   the  respondent­M/s Tata Steel Limited has been served only yesterday  and   therefore,   he   needs   time   for   filing   reply   to   the   same.   The  counsel for the petitioners raised serious objection to the prayer  for   adjournment   and   submitted   that   in   view   of   previous   order  passed by this Court, the matter may be heard today. Mr. Binod  Kanth, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent­ M/s Tata Steel Limited stated at bar that the rejoinder affidavit  filed by M/s Tata Steel Limited may be ignored.  2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to issuance  of letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 are summarised thus;  A memorandum of agreement was signed between the Provincial  Government   and   M/s   Tata   Steel   Limited   on   08.07.1909   with  respect to an area of 3564.63 acres of land. About 3564.63 acres  of land was acquired by the erstwhile Government under the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894, out of which an area of 3509.90 acres was  conveyed to M/s Tata Steel Limited through a deed of conveyance  registered on 19.01.1912. Thereafter, memoranda of agreements  dated 09.07.1918 and 18.10.1919 were also signed between the  parties.   After   the   memoranda   of   agreements   dated   09.07.1918  and   18.10.1919   were   signed   between   the   parties,   a   deed   of  conveyance with respect to 12214.74 acres of land was executed  in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited. The total land thus conveyed,  in absolute ownership, in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited was  15,725.05 acres. M/s Tata Steel Limited constructed a Steel Plant  9 and developed a planned township in the vicinity. After the State  Government initiated proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms  Act, 1950, a series of litigations ensued which ultimately ended in  insertion of Sections 7D and 7E in the Bihar Land Reforms Act.  Thereafter, an agreement of lease was executed by the erstwhile  State of Bihar in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited on 04.08.1984  and  subsequently,   an  Indenture  of Lease  dated 01.08.1985 was  executed in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited. Initially, the lease  was   executed   for   a   period   of   40   years   with   effect   from  01.01.1956, with a provision for further extension for a period of  30 years, at the option of M/s Tata Steel Limited. After the said  period   of   lease   expired   on   31.12.1995,   M/s   Tata   Steel   Limited  exercised its option for renewal by letter dated 03.08.1995. The  State of Jharkhand extended the period of lease for another 30  years by executing an Indenture of Lease which was registered on  20.08.2005. By a deeming provision incorporated in Section 7E of  the   Act   of   1950,   the   leases   granted   by   M/s   Tata   Steel   Limited  were recognised as sub­leases, on payment of fair and equitable  rent,   on   terms   and   conditions   to   be   settled   by   the   State  Government.   The   Indenture   of   Lease   dated   20.08.2005   also  contained a similar provision for sub­lease of land by M/s Tata  Steel Limited in favour of any person, with the prior approval of  the   lessor,   that   is,   the   State   Government   and   a   provision   is  incorporated in Clause 8 of the lease­deed. Vide Resolution dated  06.12.2005, an Appropriate Machinery Committee was set up by  the State of Jharkhand for expeditious disposal of cases of sub­ lease   in   terms   of   Cabinet   decision   dated   19.08.2005.   The  petitioners   submitted   applications   to   M/s   Tata   Steel   Limited   to  allot and/or sub­lease a piece of land in the area held by M/s Tata  Steel Limited under the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. M/s  Tata   Steel   Limited   forwarded   the   proposals   to   the   Appropriate  Machinery Committee and the proposals were considered by the  10 Appropriate   Machinery   Committee   in   its   meeting   held   on  09.03.2007.   After   the   approval   of   the   proposals   by   the  Appropriate Machinery Committee, the respondent­M/s Tata Steel  Limited   requested   the   Deputy   Commissioner,   East   Singhbhum,  Jamshedpur to process the proposals for seeking approval of the  State Government. The State Government granted its approval on  certain terms and conditions and communicated the same to the  Deputy  Commissioner,  East  Singhbhum  and  the  same   has  been  communicated to the petitioners also. The petitioners were put in  possession and agreement for sub­leases were executed between  M/s Tata Steel Limited and some of the petitioners on different  dates. The petitioners thereafter, paid rent for each financial year,  though under protest, to M/s Tata Steel Limited. The petitioners  thereafter,   took   necessary   steps   for   construction   over   the   land  covered   under   the   sub­lease   and   in   many   cases   substantial  construction has been completed. The necessary details in all the  writ petitions are detailed below: Sl. Case No. Date & Communication Date of Purpose of sub Area Payment No. Letter of of Approval by Possession lease in and amount Approval Deputy (DOP)/ Date of acres paid (in Commissioner Agreement for rupees) sub-Lease 1. W.P.C. No. 3465/Ra 10.10.2008 DOP:31.01.09 Extension of 4.89 Year:

2008. 6138 of dated Educational 09 Amount:

2012. 26.09.08 institute 9,53,550.00 2. W.P.C. No. 3281/Ra 26.09.2006 DOP:31.01.09 Extension of 6.80 Year:

2006. 6139 of dated Educational 07 Amount:

2012. 18.09.06 institute 13,26,000.00 3. W.P.C. No. 1719/Ra 05.06.2008 DOP:24.06.08 Shopping Mall 5.46 Year:

2008. 6163 of dated DASL: multiples 09 Amount:

2012. 15.05.08 14.08.08 55,96,500.00 4. W.P.C. No. 757/Ra 28.02.08 DOP:04.03.08 Hotel 1.96 Year:

2007. 6165 of dated DASL:

08. Amount:

2012. 26.02.08 14.06.08 7,47,250.00 5. W.P.C. No. 3858/Ra 01.12.08 DOP:02.01.09 Shopping mall 2.00 Year:

2008. 6176 of dated DASL: multiplex and 09 Amount:

2012. 17.11.08 07.10.09 hotel 8,37,500.00 6. W.P.C. No. 3545/Ra 03.11.08 DOP:14.01.09 Convention 1.00 Year:

2008. 6177 of dated DASL: Centre 09 Amount:

2012. 16.10.08 02.05.11 4,18,750.00 7. W.P.C. 1844/Ra 19.06.2006 DOP:27.08.07 Multiplex 3.12 Year:

2007. No.6199 of dated 08 Amount:

2012. 08.06.07 31,98,000.00 11 8. W.P.C. No. 3544/Ra 06.11.08 DOP:13.12.08 Banquet hall 0.60 Year:

2008. 6205 of dated 09 Amount:

2012. 15.10.08 2,62,500.00 9. W.P.C. 2575/Ra 05.07.08 DOP:27.08.08 Multi Level 0.21 Year:

2008. No.6230 of dated parking retail and 09 Amount:

2012. 27.06.08 hotel 2,15,250.00 10. W.P.C. No. 4239/Ra 16/17.01.08 DOP:10.03.08 Shopping Mall, 2.00 Year:

2007. 6243 of dated multiples and 08 Amount:

2012. 31.12.07 hotel 7,62,500.00 11. W.P.C. No. 2560/Ra 14.07.08 DOP:23.07.08 For construction 0.75 Year:

2008. 6257 of dated of religious 09 Amount:

2012. 26.06.08 educational 1,14,375.00 institution 12. W.P.C. No. 1959/Ra 12.06.08 DOP:06.09.08 Commercial and 0.104 Year:

2008. 6287 of dated (Note:The parking purpose 09 Amount:

2012. 02.06.08 petitioner is in 1,06,600.00 fact in possession of the premises since 25.02.1963 13. W.P.C. 2576/Ra -------- DOP:26.09.08 Commercial and 0.10 Year:

2008. No.6292 of dated (the petitioner parking purpose 09 Amount:

2012. 27.06.08 is in fact in 1,02,500.00 possession of the premises since 1962-63) 14. W.P.C. No. 192/Ra 28.02.09 DOP:10.04.09 Commercial and 0.123 Year:

2009. 6305 of dated Parking 10 Amount:

2012. 22.01.09 DASL:

1. 41,450.00 06.07.09 (The petitioner is in fact in possession of the premises since 01.02.1964 15. W.P.C. No. 12564/Ra 02.07.2008 DOP:05.08.08 Hotel 0.60 Year:

2008. 6319 of dated 09 Amount:

2012. 26.06.08 2,51,250.00 16. W.P.C. No. 2577/Ra 05.07.08 DOP:08.09.08 Commercial 2.00 Year:

2008. 6320 of dated Complex 09 Amount:

2012. 27.6.08 8,37,500.00 17. W.P.C. 3142/Ra 14.08.08 DOP:17.11.08 Multiplex 1.75 Year:

2008. No.6671 of dated Shopping Mall 09 Amount:

2012. 01.08.08 7,32,812.00 18. WPC No. 2026/Ra 21.06.08 DOP:29.08.08 Multiplex-cum- 3.64 Year:

2008. 6681 of dated IT Park 09 2012 11.06.08 Amount:

15. 24,250.00 19. W.P.C. No. 2595/Ra 05.07.08 DOP:27.08.08 Cold Storage 0.62 Year:

2008. 1244 of dated DASL:

09. Amount:

2013. 28.06.08 16.06.09 2,59,625.00 20. W.P.C. No. 2530/Ra 14.08.06 DOP:12.02.07 Factory 10.09 Year:

2006. 1909 of dated DASL:

07. Amount:

2013. 03.08.06 14.06.08 29,63,938.00 3. In   the   counter­affidavit,   the   respondent­State   of  Jharkhand   took   similar   stand   in   all   the   cases   stating   that   for  12 examining   the   irregularity   in   the   matter   of   sub­leases   to   the  petitioners and others and for examining the loss of Government  revenue,   the   Government   got   the   matter   enquired   into   by  Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand who submitted his report  indicating certain irregularity and loss of revenue. In view of the  report of the Member, Board of Revenue, the Government directed  vide   letter   dated   17.09.2012   to   ensure   that   the   geographical  condition of the lands in question does not change. M/s Tata Steel  Limited vide letter dated 22.09.2012, sent a compliance report to  the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated that the recommendation  for   sub­leases   is   under   enquiry   and   therefore,   the   State  Government   has   rightly   issued   directions   for   stoppage   of  construction work.  4. A   rejoinder   to   the   counter­affidavit   of   the respondent­State of Jharkhand has been filed by the petitioner(s)  denying that the State of Jharkhand is the paramount owner of  the   land   in   question.   It   is   stated   that   the   respondent­State   of  Jharkhand in its capacity as a lessor is bound by the procedure  laid down in the lease­deed with regard to grant of sub­leases.  The   report   dated   12.10.2010   is   illegal   and   without   jurisdiction  and   any   action   taken   in   pursuance   thereof   also   must   be   held  illegal   and   without   jurisdiction.   In   absence   of   any   statutory  provisions or the rules, an anonymous complain cannot be made  basis for conducting an enquiry. Even if it is assumed that there  has been some irregularity in the matter of grant of sub­leases,  that by itself does not make the grant of approval in favour of the  petitioners,   illegal   or   unlawful.   The   plea   that   the   State  Government suffered revenue loss is baseless and unfounded as  the rent sought to be realised from each sub­lessee is in terms of  Government's   own   policy   decision.   Sections   7D   and   7E  contemplate   grant   of   sub­lease   for   industrial,   commercial,  residential   or   for   such   other   purposes   on   payment   of   fair   and  13 equitable   rent.  The  action  of the State  Government  is not  only  arbitrary, harsh and disproportionate, it follows civil consequences  including   severe   financial   losses,   without   any   opportunity   of  hearing to the petitioners.  5.  A   counter­affidavit   has   been   filed   on   behalf   of  respondent   M/s   Tata   Steel   Limited   stating   that   the lease­deed recognised that, “for the development of the town and  for the supply and maintenance of services, aforesaid and diverse  civic amenities to the town of Jamshedpur, the lessee incurred a  huge   expenditure   and   the   burden   of   a   large   deficit   after   the  recovery made from the recipients of the services” and therefore,  the   State   thought   it   necessary   in   public   interest   that,   “the  development and services should continue to be undertaken and  rendered   by   the   lessee   as   hitherto   at   its   cost   and   mode   of  management and realisation of charges for services so rendered in  the   manner   followed   so   far”.   In   Clause   17  of   the   Indenture   of  Lease, the services of municipal nature has been assigned to the  respondent­M/s Tata Steel Limited. M/s Tata Steel Limited enjoys  discretionary   right   to   propose   further   sub­letting   of   the   vacant  land to various categories of utilisation, in  consonance  with all  round development of the town. After the last renewal, M/s Tata  Steel Limited revisited the requirement of town and accordingly,  forwarded   proposals   for   sub­leases   for   setting   up   malls   and  multiplexes which were approved by the State Government. The  report dated 12.10.2010 is full of infirmities and illegalities. The  findings, conclusions and suggestions in report dated 12.10.2010  are   based   on   non­existent   facts   and   assumptions.   Letters   dated  22.09.2012 and other 56 letters, all dated 13.10.2012 as well as  letter dated 28.10.2012 were issued to M/s Tata Steel Limited and  the   petitioners   to   which   M/s   Tata   Steel   Limited   gave   a  comprehensive reply on different issues raised in the said letters.  Again, vide letter dated 03.11.2012, M/s Tata Steel Limited has  14 furnished separate replies to all 56 letters.  6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.  7. Mr.   A.K.   Ganguli,   the   learned   Senior   Counsel  appearing in W.P.(C) No. 6163 of 2012, after tracing the history  how Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 came to be executed,  submits that the bone of contention in the present batch of writ  petitions is power of M/s Tata Steel Limited to grant sub­leases, a  power incorporated in Clause 8 of the said Indenture of Lease.  Stressing on the words “necessary” and “any person”, the learned  Senior  Counsel   submitted that  the  right  conferred  on  M/s Tata  Steel   Limited   to   sub­lease   any   portion   of   the   vacant   land   is  subject to prior approval of the State Government which, in turn,  is   required   to   settle   the   terms   of   the   sub­lease   only.   When M/s Tata Steel Limited with a view to cater the present day need  of the residents of Jamshedpur decided to part with a portion of  land to the petitioners and the proposals for sub­leases in favour  of   the   petitioners   were   considered   by   a   5­Member   Appropriate  Machinery   Committee   and   the   proposal   of   the   Appropriate  Machinery   Committee   was   approved   by   the   State   Government,  the   State   Government   is   precluded   from   issuing   directions   for  seizure of the construction  activities, without issuing show­cause  notice to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the letters  dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 were issued 6 years after the  allotments were proposed and about 4 years after the same were  approved   by   the   State   Government   and   in   the   meantime,   the  petitioners raised substantial construction by investing huge funds  and thus, the least what was required in the matter was to issue a  show­cause notice to the petitioners.  8. Mr.   Jaideep   Gupta,   the   learned   Senior   Counsel  appearing for the petitioner­XLRI School of Business and Human  Resources   in   W.P.(C)   No.   6138   of   2012   submits   that   a 15 lessee/sub­lessee has a right in law to enjoy the property to the  exclusion of all others, during the term of the lease. Recounting  the   events   leading   to   putting   the   petitioners   in   possession,   the  learned   Senior   Counsel   submitted   that   on   a   mere   figment   of  imagination of the alleged irregularity, the directions issued under  letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 cannot be issued by the  State   Government.   Contending   that   the   action   of   the respondent­State   of   Jharkhand   is   completely   arbitrary,   it   is  submitted   that   even   in   contractual   matters,   the   State   is   not  relieved of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of  Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the agreement  for sub­lease has been executed between M/s Tata Steel Limited  and  the   petitioners and thus, the  respondent­authorities cannot  restrain the petitioners from exercising their leasehold rights. It is  further submitted that the impugned communications suffer from  non­application of mind in as much as, individual cases were not  examined   to   ascertain   whether   the   proposal/approval   for   sub­ lease is tainted by extraneous considerations or misrepresentation.  9. Mr.   Debal   Banerjee,   the   learned   Senior   Counsel  appearing for the petitioner­Ashiana Housing and Finance India  Limited in W.P.(C) No. 6176 of 2012 submitted that the petitioner  has also raised substantial construction and the direction not to  continue   further   construction   has   caused   serious   injury   to   the  petitioner.  10. Ms. Aparajita Singh, the learned counsel appearing for  the petitioner­P & N Infrastructure in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012,  submits that the petitioner has taken huge loan for construction of  multiplexes   and   it   is   incurring   huge   interest   thereon.   Due   to  prohibition in interim order dated 07.03.2013 not to create any  third   party   interest,   the   petitioner   is   not   able   to   enter   into   an  agreement to sale, so as to realise a part of the loan amount from  the   intending   purchasers.   The   direction   contained   in   the  16 impugned letters prohibiting further construction has resulted in  huge   financial   loss   to   the   petitioner   on   account   of   mounting  interest   on   the   loan   amount.   She   has   further   submitted   that  agreement for sub­lease in favour of the petitioner is a registered  instrument and it has the effect of a sub­lease, in law and thus,  the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of its lessor which is the  lessee under the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. Since no  action   in   terms   of   Clause   24   of   the   Indenture   of   Lease   dated  20.08.2005 has been taken, the respondent­State of Jharkhand is  not justified in issuing letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012.  11.  As   against   the   above,   Mr.   Ajit   Kumar,   the   learned  Additional   Advocate­General   refers   to   various   clauses   of  Indenture   of   Lease   dated   20.8.2005   and   submits   that   in   the lease­deed  itself,   several  categories   of   land  have   been   specified  and   the   purpose   for   which   different   categories   of   land   can   be  utilised has also been provided however, the proposals for grant of sub­lease in favour of the petitioners which has been forwarded,  are not in consonance with the object and purpose mentioned in  the   Indenture   of   Lease.   Referring   to   Clause   8,   the   learned  Additional   Advocate­General   submitted   that   under   Clause   8, M/s Tata Steel Limited can make proposal in respect of “vacant  lands” only and any such proposal is subject to the prior approval  of   the   State   Government.   Upon   enquiry,   when   certain  irregularities were detected, the impugned letters were issued to  ensure that the geographical condition of the lands in question is  maintained. It is further submitted that the State is the paramount  owner of the leased land and approval for the sub­lease has to be  accorded   by   the   Revenue   and   Land   Reforms   Department.   The  approval communicated to the petitioners is not the Government  decision   in   terms   of   Article   166   of   the   Constitution   of   India.  Moreover, the State Government has every right to review its own  decision in the interest of the State. Since the allocation of land in  17 favour of the petitioners appears to be   contrary to the terms of  Indenture   of  Lease, before  taking any action  in  the  matter, the  respondent­State of Jharkhand has rightly directed the petitioners  not to raise further constructions. It is further submitted that the  right of the State, being the paramount owner, to conduct enquiry  in the matter for ascertaining the purpose for which proposal for  grant of sub­lease has been made, cannot be questioned.  12. In reply, on behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that  the right of the State to conduct an enquiry in the matter is, in  fact,   not   disputed   by   the   petitioners.   However,   the   manner   in  which the impugned orders contained in letters dated 17.09.2012  and 21.09.2012 have been issued, affecting the valuable rights of  the petitioners, has been questioned in the present proceeding.  13. I   have   carefully   considered   the   submissions   of   the  counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.  14. From the affidavits filed in the present proceeding, I  gather that there is no dispute in so far as, the recommendation of  Appropriate   Machinery   Committee   forwarded   to   the   State  Government, is concerned. The learned AAG has submitted that  the communication of the approval of the State Government for  sub­lease   in   favour   of   the   petitioners  has   been   disputed   by   the  respondent­State   of   Jharkhand,   on   the   ground   that   the   said  communication was not the decision of the Government. However,  I   find   that   it   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   petitioners  were   put   in  possession and in several cases, substantial construction has been  raised.   The   direction   not   to   carry   further   construction   would  necessarily   followed   civil   consequences   to   the   petitioners.   In  “Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New   Delhi & Ors.”,  (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Constitution Bench of the  Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   held   that,   “civil   consequence”   covers  infraction   of not   merely property or personal rights but of civil  18 liberties, material deprivations and non­pecuniary damages also. It  is   well   settled   as   a   fundamental   rule   of   law   that,   no   decision  should be taken which will affect the right of a person without  first   being   informed   of   the   case   and   giving   an   opportunity   of  hearing. In “State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei”, reported in AIR   1967 SC 1269, it has been held that even an administrative order  or decision, in matters involving civil consequences, must be made  consistent with rules of natural justice. In “Canara Bank & Ors. Vs.   Debasis Das & Ors.”, reported in  (2003) 4 SCC 557, the Hon'ble  Supreme Court has observed thus,  14.  The   expressions   “natural   justice”   and   “legal   justice” do not present a watertight classification. It is   the substance of justice which is to be secured by both,   and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn   purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice.   Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary   technicality,   grammatical   pedantry   or   logical   prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated   law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure   should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of   a litigant’s defence. 15.  The adherence to principles of natural justice as   recognized   by   all   civilized   States   is   of   supreme   importance   when   a   quasi­judicial   body   embarks   on   determining   disputes   between   the   parties,   or   any   administrative action involving civil consequences is in   issue. These principles are well settled.…............Thus,   it is but essential that a party should be put on notice   of the case before any adverse order is passed against   him. This is one of the most important principles of   natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair   play. The concept has gained significance and shades   with time...................”.

15. In   the   writ   petitions,   the   petitioners   have   taken   a  specific   plea   that   without   affording  opportunity  of   hearing,  the  impugned   letters   were   issued   by   the   respondent­State   of  Jharkhand. In the rejoinder affidavit to the counter­affidavit filed  by the State, the plea of violation of rules of natural justice has  again   been   reiterated   by   the   petitioners.   To   a   pointed   query,  19 whether   any   action   in   terms   of   Clause   24   of   the   Indenture   of  Lease dated 20.08.2005 has been taken by the State or not, the  learned Additional Advocate­General submitted that the matter is  still at the stage of enquiry and though, he sought information  from the concerned authorities, immediately after the last hearing  of   the   cases,   he   has   received   no   instructions   in   the   matter.  However, it is contended that the petitioners have no right in law  and   therefore,   they   are   not   entitled   for   grant   of   hearing.   It   is  further   contended   that   there   is   no   sub­lease   existing   in   their  favour   and   therefore,   the   contention   that   they   are   entitled   for  peaceful enjoyment of the property till the currency of the sub­ leases, is liable to be rejected.  16. I am of the opinion that in so far as, the right of the  State   Government   to   conduct   an   enquiry   in   the   matter   and  examine the proposal for grant of sub­leases are concerned, the  same cannot be challenged by the petitioners however, there is no  dispute that the direction to maintain status­quo and thus, not to  raise   further   construction,  has  been  issued  without   hearing  the  petitioners.   Though   certain   apprehensions   were   expressed   on  behalf   of   the   petitioners   and   the   learned   counsel   for   the  respondent­M/s Tata Steel Limited asserted that it is the company  which is the absolute owner of the lands in question, the broad  consensus among the learned counsel for the petitioners is that  while permitting the State to conduct an enquiry in the matter, a  time   schedule   may   be   prescribed   and   the   petitioners   also   be  afforded an opportunity of hearing. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned  Additional Advocate­General submits that during the period the  enquiry   is   to   be   completed,   if   the   petitioners   are   permitted   to  create third party rights, it may lead to serious complications in  future and therefore, the interim order dated 07.03.2013 may be  extended   till   the   conclusion   of   the   enquiry.   The   apprehension  expressed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand is misplaced and  20 founded   on   ignorance   of   settled   principles   of   law.   In   the   first  place,   there   is   no   restriction   in   the   impugned   letters   dated  17.09.2012   and   21.09.2012   prohibiting   the   petitioners   from  creating third party rights. It is also well settled that an alienation  of right, title or interest in the property would be binding only to  the extent of right conferred upon the lessee/sub­lessee.  17. Accordingly,   without   entering   into   the   merits   of   the  matter,  the   writ   petitions are  allowed to the  extent that, if the  State Government decides to conduct an enquiry in the matter,  the   same   must   be   completed  on   or   before  31.03.2015  and  the  petitioners would be given individual notices. It is further ordered  that the petitioners and M/s Tata Steel Limited would furnish all  required informations, if any, sought by the State Government and  they would co­operate in expeditious conclusion of the enquiry.  In   case,   the   State     Government   takes   an   adverse   decision,   the  same would be communicated to the petitioners with a copy of  the enquiry report.   18. The   writ   petitions   are   disposed   of,   in   the   aforesaid  terms.

19. I.A. No. 769 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6163 of 2012,  I.A.  No. 653 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6176 of 2012, I.A. No. 6633 of  2013 & I.A. No. 4198 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012, I.A.  No. 3192 of 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 6305 of 2012  and I.A. No. 756 of  2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6320 of 2012  stand disposed of.         (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/A.F.R.