Skip to content


Ratan Lal Soni Vs. Land Reforms and Revenue Department - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantRatan Lal Soni
RespondentLand Reforms and Revenue Department
Excerpt:
.....have been made on the ground that the agreement entered into with them does not stipulate any rent enhancement clause. shops are said to be constructed on payment of condition money such as rs. 32,000/- in case of the petitioner in wpc no. 4703/2016 for an area of 120 sq. ft (shop no.17) to be adjusted against the monthly rental. after the entire adjustment, rent to be realized from the shop owners by issuing rent receipts. agreements such as at annexure-6 are said to have been entered into pursuant to allotment of shops and petitioners have been put in possession consequent thereto.5. counsel for the petitioners, on being asked, however submits that a reasonable enhancement in rent would be acceptable to the allottees / petitioners through a mediated resolution of the issue.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4708 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4703 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4704 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4705 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4707 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4709 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4710 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4713 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4715 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4716 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4724 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4751 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4753 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4756 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4763 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4765 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4766 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4769 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4770 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4771 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4774 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4778 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4845 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4846 of 2016 with W.P. (C) No. 4847 of 2016 --- Ratan Lal Soni --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47082016] Ghanshyam Mahto --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47032016] Jagarnath Sharma --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47042016] Rafi Ahmad --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47052016] Bipin Bihari Singh --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47072016] Shankar Lal Choudhary --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47092016] Suresh Thakur --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47102016] 2. Rajendra Thakur --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47132016] Md. Islam --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47152016] Dinesh Thakur --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47162016] Murli Mistri --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47242016] Md. Minaz Akhtar --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47512016] Subhash Kumar Agarwal --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47532016] Murli Mistri --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47562016] Prabha Choudhary --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47632016] Rohit Prasad --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47652016] Ramdhari Agarwal --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47662016] Balbir Agarwal @ Balbir Kumar Dhanania---- Petitioner [in WPC47692016] Kumud Prasad --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47702016] Awadhesh Singh --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47712016] Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47742016] Arun Kumar Singh --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC47782016] Anima Gulab Ekka --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC48452016] Deepak Sahu --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC48462016] Purushottam Agarwal --- --- ---- Petitioner [in WPC48472016] Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Land, Revenue & Registration 2. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Simdega 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega 5. Circle Officer, Simdega 6. Simdega Municipal Council through its Executive Officer, Simdega --- --- --- Respondents [in all the cases] --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. , Advocate For the Resp - State: M/s Chandra Prabha, SC-IV, Vishal Kr. Singh, JC to SC-IV, Baleshwar Yadav & Deepak Kr. Dubey, JC to SC-I, Kaustav Roy, JC to Sr. SC, Rakesh Kr. Sinha, JC to A.A.G., Ashish Kr. Thakur, JC to SC (L&C) --- 02/ 05.09.2016 Heard counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitioners are under an Agreement in respect of shops allotted near bus stand / daily market, Simdega since 1995-96. Shops have been allotted @ Rs. 2.00 per sq. ft pursuant to the decision of Deputy Commissioner, Gumla within which the present district of Simdega fell, as per letter dated 30.12.1994 and guidelines issued by the Member, Board of Revenue dated 18.11.1987.

3. Notices dated 22.11.2012 and 13.07.2016 (Annexures-8&7 in WPC47032016) are impugned by the respective writ petitioners against whom, similar notices have been issued. Notice of 2012 has been issued by the Sub Divisional Office, Simdega while notice issued in July 2016 have been issued by the Executive 3. Officer, Nagar Parishad, Simdega. By the impugned notice dated 22.11.2012 and similar notices impugned in other connected writ petitions, rent of the leased premises have been increased from Rs. 2.00 per sq. ft to Rs. 10.00 per sq. ft from November 2012. By notice dated 13.07.2016 and other similar notices in other connected writ petitions, individual allottees / petitioners have been asked to deposit the arrear rent within 15 days, failing which, steps would be taken for eviction from the allotted shops.

4. Challenge to these notices have been made on the ground that the Agreement entered into with them does not stipulate any rent enhancement Clause. Shops are said to be constructed on payment of condition money such as Rs. 32,000/- in case of the petitioner in WPC No. 4703/2016 for an area of 120 sq. ft (shop no.

17) to be adjusted against the monthly rental. After the entire adjustment, rent to be realized from the shop owners by issuing rent receipts. Agreements such as at Annexure-6 are said to have been entered into pursuant to allotment of shops and petitioners have been put in possession consequent thereto.

5. Counsel for the petitioners, on being asked, however submits that a reasonable enhancement in rent would be acceptable to the allottees / petitioners through a mediated resolution of the issue involved herein realizing the fact that the rent @ Rs. 2.00 per sq. ft has remained static for more than 17 years since its allotment.

6. Counsel for the Respondent State submits that dispute relating to enhancement of rent and any action contemplated on failure to do so, may be subject to the provisions of Rent Control Act which apply to such premises, where petitioners may have adequate remedy to raise their grievances, if any. They however do not dispute that an effort can be made for mediated resolution of the dispute relating to enhancement between the allottees and the authorities of Nagar Parishad, Simdega, as these allottees have remained for more than 20 years in the allotted shops. Nagar Parishad, Simdega only appears to be interested in the 4. reasonable enhancement of rent of the allotted shops which have remained static for more than 20 years by now. Depending upon the outcome or on failure to arrive at negotiated settlement of the dispute, parties may be left with the liberty to take any action and approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of their grievances. However, counsel for the Respondent State shall seek instruction from the State Respondents as well as Simdega Municipal Council.

7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, at the outset, it can be said that the dispute posed in the present batch of writ petitions, appears to be on the question of enhancement of rent of the allotted shops to the individual petitioners which are in occupation under lessor Nagar Parishad, Simdega over a period of 20 years since its allotment. Neither in the terms of the Agreement nor the Statute under which such Tenancy Agreements are governed, rent of any premises whether it be private or public, can be frozen for such length of time. However, an effort should be made between the parties to arrive at an agreed resolution of the dispute relating to enhancement of rent. The objective attendant factors are therefore required to be looked into when such an exercise is held. Therefore, for the present, following course is deemed reasonable to be adopted. (i) Petitioners shall deposit the arrear rent from November 2012 @ Rs. 4.00 per sq. ft. till date within a period of six weeks from today, without prejudice to their rights. (ii) Parties in the meantime would endeavour to arrive at a negotiated settlement of the dispute relating to enhancement of rent within a period of eight weeks from today. (iii) Petitioners on being called by the Competent Authority / Simdega Muncipal Council, shall participate in such exercise jointly. Parties shall thereafter bring on record the outcome of such exercise on the question of enhancement of rent by way of an affidavit. If the petitioners' deposit the amount, as aforesaid, within the said period, no coercive steps be taken against such individual petitioners till the next date.

5. 8. In some of the writ petitions such as WPC No. 4763/2016, counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is not the original allottee, rather claim to have purchased the shop from the original allottees. In that event, any deposit made pursuant to the interim order passed today, would not be meant to confer any legal right in favour of such person as a allottee as the same would be subject to the correctness and legality of any such transfer made pursuant to the original allotment and Agreement and upon satisfaction of the lessor.

9. List all these cases in the last week of October 2016 under the heading for admission. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //