JUDGMENT By Court - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dated th June, 2008 passed in W.P (C) No.4001/2007, by which the appellant's writ petition has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner-appellant is a member of Scheduled Tribe and he intended to lease out his agricultural land to the Indian Oil Corporation and submitted the lease deed for registration before the District Sub-Registrar, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, on 21st November, 2006. By letter no.177 dated 24th November, 2006, the parties were informed that as the land belonged to the member of Scheduled Tribe, the same can be transferred after previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner applied for grant of permission on 29th December, 2006 before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the petitioner's said application for sanction for leasing out his agricultural land was not decided but the petitioner was of the view that the objection raised by the District Sub-Registrar by letter dated 24th November, 2006, is contrary to law and therefore, preferred to challenge the said communication of the District Sub-Registrar, asking the petitioner to obtain sanction of the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 4. Learned Single Judge, after considering provision of section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, held that for such lease, which amounts to transfer of right by the member of Scheduled Tribe, previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner is required. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the restriction applies only in a case where the lease is exceeding 5 years and restriction has no application in a case where lease is of less than 5 years or for 5 years. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even from the conjoint reading of clause (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 46 with proviso (a) of section 46 also, it is clear that there is no requirement of obtaining previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner in a case of lease falling under clause (a) of section 46(1) because of the reason that the restriction as imposed by proviso (a) applies only to the cases of “sale”, “exchange”, “gift” or “will” by an occupancy-raiyat, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe. 6. 6. However, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no factual foundation for challenging the direction of the District Sub-Registrar, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, because of the reason that the petitioner's case is not falling under clause (a) of section 46(1), which is clear from the stipulation made in the lease deed sought to be registered which is the lease deed not only for a period upto 5 years but which is a lease deed of 5 years with a clause of renewal and lease may extend to 30 years on increase of 10% of agreed rent. 7. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the provisions of the section referred above as well as the condition of lease. 8. In the lease deed itself, it is clearly mentioned that the lease contract has a clause for renewal upto 30 years and therefore, it does not fall within the clause (a) of section 46(1) because of the reason that not only the lease which is purported to be a lease for 5 years but the lease, which might have possibility to be extended beyond the period of 5 years, if not initially executed for more than 5 years, then also is covered under clause (a) of section 46(1); meaning thereby – if there is possibility of renewal of the lease beyond the period of 5 years, then such transfers are impermissible under section 46(1)(a) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 9. In view of the above reasons and further for the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition of the appellant has no merit and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of rejection of the writ petition of the appellant. This L.P.A is, thus, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.