Dismissed

Most Shakuntala Mehta v. S a I L

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2023WPC/5189/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directions to register a lease agreement for a quarter and to act under relevant property and registration laws. The Court declined to grant relief due to lack of final Ministry decision and contingent counters.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's reliefs for registration of lease deed and direction to act under Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of Registration Act were dismissed.

Most Shakuntala Mehta Vs S a I L — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 5189 of 2012

¶3

Most Shakuntala Mehta, wife of late Pradip Kumar, resident of quarter No.C/1138, Sector – IV, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. through its Chairman, Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi

¶6

The Steel Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi

¶7

The Managing Director of Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro

¶8

The General Manager SAIL Town Services, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro … … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate

¶13

¶14

09 /15.02.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶15

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶16

“a) For a direction upon the concerned respondent for taking appropriate steps to register the AGREEMENT TO LEASE dated 19.03.2002, executed in their favour, leasing out the quarter in question.

¶17

b) For a direction upon the respondent to Act as per provision laid down under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and in terms of provision made in Section 17 of Registration Act in this regard.

¶18

c) For a direction upon the respondents to Act in accordance with resolution of the Central government dated 30.05.2012 (Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, (Directorate of Estate) Resolution made in respect of the said Act and follow the same accordingly, which is precedent.

¶19

d) For passing appropriate order in terms of ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of such occupant the reported judgment quoted herein below.

¶20

e) For restraining the respondent for taking any adverse steps in the light of leased deed executed in their favour.”

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are not in a position to register the lease deed on account

¶22

¶23

of the averments made in the counter-affidavit. He also submits that no final decision in this regard has been communicated to the respondents from the concerned Ministry and accordingly, he submits that no relief as prayed for by the petitioner may be granted by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

¶24

4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition. However, it will be open to the petitioner to avail his remedy as permissible under law.

¶25

5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶27

7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

¶28

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶29

Saurav/

Most Shakuntala Mehta v. S a I L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most Shakuntala Mehta v. S a I L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Prasad Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jay Prakash Harlalka Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Kr Mehta And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Bihari BHAGATalias Bihari Mahto Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

Rungta Projects Limited Vs Central Coalfields Limited

Shiv Kumar Ray Vs Union of India And Ors.