Jharkhand High Court
P & M Infrastructure Limited vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 11 February, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1348 of 2017
P & M Infrastructure Limited ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
: Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
: Mr. K. Hari, Advocate
: Mr. Chaitanya Vijay, Advocate
: Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen,
AC to AAG-IA
For the Resp. TISCO : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Resp. JNAC : Mr. Vijay Kumar Ray, Advocate
---
14/11.02.2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
case is clearly covered by the judgment passed by this Court in
W.P(C) No. 529 of 2019 wherein a direction was issued to execute
registered sub-lease in favour of the petitioner of that case. He also
submits that an appeal filed against this judgment has been dismissed
though only on the point of limitation and it has also been observed
that the plea of res-judicata will not be available with respect to other
cases, if any.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that
the report of the enquiry committee was not available in W.P.(C) No.
529 of 2019 and in present, there is a report which has been annexed
along with the supplementary counter affidavit. The learned counsel
has submitted that the primary objection of the State is that the Tata
Steel had handed over the property to the petitioner without any
registered document of sub-lease.
4. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred
to Annexure-7 to the writ petition and has submitted that as per the
letter itself the entire payment has been remitted and a direction was
issued to hand over the possession of the property so that there is no
loss of revenue. The learned counsel has also submitted that
subsequently the allotted land was changed and additional amount was
directed to be deposited. For this purpose another letter dated 30th
June, 2007 was issued. The said document is contained in Annexure-9
of the writ petition. He submits that ultimately the possession was
handed over vide Annexure-10 and the reading of the aforesaid
documents reveal that the possession was handed over in terms of the
directions issued as contained in letter dated 23.06.2006 read with
letter dated 30.06.2007.
5. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is a clear
indication in the letter dated 23.06.2006 to hand over the possession so
that there is no loss of revenue. He has submitted that while the act of
Tata steel (the respondent herein), appropriate steps were taken to
hand over the possession and thereby the private respondent has taken
care of the loss of revenue.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private
respondent has supported the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
7. The court time is over, post this case on 12.02.2025 for further
hearing at 12:30 PM.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
