Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 932 (JHR)

Chetan Anand Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-06

N.N.TIWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT : In this interlocutory application, the applicant-intervener has prayed for his addition as party (respondent) in the writ petition. 2. It has been submitted that the writ petition is related to Mutation Case No.137 of 1987-88 in respect of lease of Khas Mahal Holding no.416, comprising within Plot no.498, measuring an area of 5 decimals. It has been stated that the said lease stood in the name of Karuna Prasad and Arunjay Prasad. They had inducted a tenant, namely, Satyapal Verma (father of the writ petitioners). The applicant was posted at Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) and in his absence, the writ petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for mutation of their names in respect of the said holding, which has been entertained by the Deputy Commissioner. Since the applicant is highly interested person, he should be also added as a party (respondent) in this writ petition. 3. The writ petitioners objected to the prayer made in this interlocutory application on the ground that the lease granted in favour of the father of the applicant-intervener has already expired and they are in occupation of the premises and, thereafter, they were offered to exercise option for renewal of the lease. The petitioners exercised their option for renewal of the lease and the same is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Plamau. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that admittedly the applicant’s father was the original lessee and there was an order for process of renewal in favour of the applicant-intervener. In view of the above, I find that the applicant’s presence is necessary for the ends of justice. 5. This interlocutory application is allowed. The applicant-Lalit Kumar is allowed to be added as Respondent no.4 in the writ petition. 6. I.A. No.3054 of 2008 stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.6679 of 2007: 7. Heard the parties. 8. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Plamau, Daltonganj to take action on their representation in connection with Mutation Case No.137 of 1987-88. 9. It has been stated that the lease in respect of Khas Mahal Holding no.416, Plot no.498, measuring an area of 5 decimals was granted in the name of Late Karuna Prasad and Arunjay Prasad. The petitioners’ father Satyapal Verma was inducted as a tenant by the said lessee. 9. It has been stated that the lease in respect of Khas Mahal Holding no.416, Plot no.498, measuring an area of 5 decimals was granted in the name of Late Karuna Prasad and Arunjay Prasad. The petitioners’ father Satyapal Verma was inducted as a tenant by the said lessee. According to the petitioners, the lease was cancelled for violating the term and inducted Satyapal Verma as a tenant. Thereafter, an offer was made to them for renewal of the lease and they, accordingly, filed an application as far back as in the year 1999 for renewal of the lease, but till date the Deputy Commissioner has not passed any order. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.4 submitted that the original lessees were Karuna Prasad and Arunjay Prasad. Initially the period of lease was 30 years, which was granted in the year 1958. Before the expiry of the lease, the said lessees had made application for renewal of lease and the lease was renewed in their favour for further 30 years. The lease is, thus, subsisting in their names and there is no question of making a fresh lease in favour of the writ petitioners without cancelling the lease, which has been renewed for further period in favour of Respondent no.4. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Plamau, Daltonganj to consider the representation of the petitioners, as also afford an opportunity to the Respondent no.4 to be present and heard in the said case and to dispose of Mutation Case No.137 of 1987-88 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.