Jharkhand High Court
Hridyanand Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3130 of 2019
Hridyanand Gupta ..... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Land,
Revenue and Registration, Government of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Simdega
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega
4. Municipal Council, Simdega, through its Executive Officer
.... .... Respondents [
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Ms. Shilpi Shandilya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. (Mines)-III
Order No. 03 Dated: 15.07.2021
The present case is taken up today through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:
(i) For quashing/setting aside the conditions regarding shop
allotment, as contained in memo no. 1170(ii) dated 13.07.2016
(Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 4
to the extent that the rent of the shop allotted to fire affected
people has been fixed at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- per square
feet.
(ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents particularly the
respondent no. 4 to take uniform decision and fix rent in respect
of shops allotted in favour of fire affected persons commensurate
with rent realised by it from the neighbouring shops constructed
by the said respondent at Market Complex, Simdega.
(iii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to fix
reasonable rent in respect of the shop allotted in favour of the
petitioner, being fire affect person, keeping in view that the shop
has been allotted to him as a measure of rehabilitation and
resettlement being a beneficial exercise undertaken by the
respondent-State of Jharkhand.
3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that a
batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(C) No. 6644 of 2017 (Sahjad Ansari Vs.
the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) filed on similar issue as raised in the present
writ petition has been dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 18.11.2019.
4. Ms. Shilpi Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
submits that some of the petitioners of the said batch of writ petitions being
aggrieved with judgment dated 18.11.2019, have preferred Letters Patent
Appeals before the learned Division Bench of this Court led by L.P.A. No. 26
of 2020 which are still pending adjudication.
5. On perusal of the judgment dated 18.11.2019 passed by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, it appears that W.P.(C) No. 6644 of 2017 and other
analogous cases have already been dismissed, the relevant part of which
reads as under:
"12. This Court after considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter,
having not been rebutted by the petitioners since no rejoinder has been
filed, is of the view that the rate of rent of Rs.20/- per square feet, cannot
be said to be excess and exorbitant so far as fixation of the standard rate
and it is to be done in pursuance to the fixation as per the provision made
under Section 9 of the Act, 2011.
This court has also considered the rate of rent on this angle and
found the table stipulated containing the rate of rent under Annexure-4,
wherein in the first floor the rate is either Rs.75/- per square feet or Rs.
50/- per square feet or Rs.30/- per square feet or Rs.25/- per square feet
and Rs.20/- per square feet is the lowest one, keeping the fact into
consideration that the earlier shop which according to the petitioners have
been settled by way of newly constructed pucca building in a site just
adjacent to the Bus Stand which is at the midst of the market and
therefore, this Court is of the view that the basis of fixation of the standard
rate is based upon the parameter fixed in Section 9 of the Jharkhand
Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, however, the Tenancy
Act, 2011 is not applicable but as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Patel Gowardhan Das Vs. Municipal Commissioner,
Ahmedabad (supra) and Dr. Balbir Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation
of Delhi, that while fixing the rent of the Government building the
parameters of fixation under the tenancy law is to be kept in mind.
13. This Court after discussing the facts in detailed hereinabove as
also putting reliance by the petitioners upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court has also considered the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for making interference in decision making process since it has
been the position of law that the High Court can interfere with the decision
making process if there is error in the decision taken.
This Court has found from the materials available on record that the
decision of fixation of enhancement of rent does not suffer from any error
in decision making process and therefore, is not inclined to exercise the
extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
14. In the result, all the writ petitions failed and are accordingly,
dismissed."
6. Since it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that
the issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to the issue raised in
W.P.(C) No. 6644 of 2017 and other analogous cases, which have been
dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
18.11.2019, the present writ petition is also dismissed in terms with the said
judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 6644 of 2017 and other analogous cases.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh/
