Azad Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Pr Secretary Department of Urban Development and Housing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (C) No. 3218 of 2024

Azad Kumar Thakur aged about 45 years Son of Shri Ram Darshan Thakur resident of MIG Plot No.C/124, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. ...... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing, having its office at RRDA Building, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

¶6

The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

¶7

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

¶10

The Manager Estate, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. ..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V

¶14

08/Dated:-07.03.2025

¶15

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the letter dated 08.05.2024 (Annexure-7), as contained in letter No. 397/Aa issued by the 4^th respondent in favour of the petitioner; whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a further amount of Rs.14,80,535/- in favour of the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi (IN SHORT-Respondent-Board) for conversion of plot No. C/124 from lease-hold to free-hold under Clause 2 (ii) of notification No.3841 dated 20.09.2019 issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Jharkhand.

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents to convert the aforesaid plot from leasehold to free-hold as the petitioner has already deposited Rs.15,12,695/- on 15.03.2024 as one time conversion fee pursuant to the letter dated 12.03.2024 issued by the 4^th Respondent in favour of the Petitioner.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a vacant MIG Plot No. C/124 from one Shri Upendra Nath Chaturvedi pursuant to 3^rd party allotment No.1020 dated 04.05.1979 through a tripartite lease in perpetuity on 11.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.18,45,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner constructed a house and started residing in the said property.

¶19

He further submits that in the year 2019, a notification of the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Jharkhand being notification No.3841 dated 20.09.2019 was issued, which provided for conversion of property from lease-hold to free-hold. Therefore, on 05.10.2023, petitioner applied for conversion of the plot which was allotted to him. Pursuant to the said application, the 4^th respondent informed the petitioner to deposit Rs.15,12,695/- which is 15% of the current rate of the land in question in view of Rule 2(ii) of Jharkhand State Housing Board (Management and Release) Amendment Rules, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rule) and pursuant thereto, the petitioner immediately deposited the aforesaid amount on 15.03.2024 which is an admitted fact.

¶20

2

¶21

Thereafter, the petitioner through a letter dated 18.03.2024 informed the 5^th respondent that he had deposited the aforesaid amount as demanded by the 4^th respondent. However, instead of issuing a formal letter of conversion after receiving the amount; to the utter surprise of the petitioner, received another letter from the 4^th respondent that the petitioner is required to deposit Rs.14,80,535/- more.

¶22

The petitioner immediately represented the 2^nd respondent that he had already deposited the amount of Rs.15,12,695/- which was demanded by the 4^th respondent vide its letter dated 12.03.2024. However, when nothing had happened, petitioner knocked the door of this Court.

¶23

3. He contended that there is no justification, whatsoever, for demanding an extra amount of Rs.14,80,535/- being the l5% amount of the present property in spite of the fact that the leased hold property was only land and the building which has been constructed thereon; has been built by the petitioner himself; as such, he prays for quashing of the impugned letter (Annexure-7) and further prayed for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to issue a formal letter of conversion in favour of the Petitioner.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the counter affidavit, draws attention of this Court towards the notification of the Government being notification No.3841 dated 20.09.2019 and submits that the petitioner is required to pay 15% of the property in question for the purpose of conversion.

¶25

3

¶26

5. Mr. Sachin Kumar contended that since the Petitioner had constructed a house over the plot which was allotted to him; taking the value of the land plus building, the Respondents though initially demanded Rs.15,12,695/-, but subsequently, after adding the value of the house standing on the said plot, revised its demand by issuing the demand letter dated 08.05.2024 for balance amount of Rs.14,80,535/-; as such, in view of the said notification, there is no error in the impugned letter.

¶27

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it is an admitted case that the Respondent Board is entitled for 15% of the current value of the property and also the Petitioner was allotted only piece of land and he himself has constructed the building on it. 7. Now, the issue which is to be decided in the instant writ application is as to whether the Respondent-Board is entitled for 15% of the current value of the entire property i.e. land and building in spite of the fact that originally only land was leased-out to the petitioner . For that, relevant portion of the notification dated 20.09.2019 is to be analyzed. For brevity the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶28

“(2) झारखਔ रा৸ आवास बोड१ के �ारा आवंिटत एवं भिव� म७ आवंिटत िकये जाने वाले आवासीय स�दाओं को Lease hold से free hold म७ पौरवत१न करने हेतु "Onetime conversion fee" ঋा� कर िन�िल्खत शतॵ एवं बंधेजों के साथ free hold के ॺप म७ िनबंिधत िकया जा सकेगाः-

¶29

(i) यह झारखਔ रा৸ आवास बोड१ की िसफ१ उ�ी आवासीय स�दाओं पर लागू होगी िजन स�दाओं को िन�ार आवासीय उपयोग हेतु Lease Hold के आधार पर िकया गया है।

¶30

(ii) झारखਔ रा৸ आवास बोड१ िविहत ঋपআ म७ आवंिटत Lease Hold स�दाओं (भूखण्ड अथवा भूखਔ एव उन पर िनिम१त �ैटों अथवा मकानों) भले ही उनका आकार िकतना भी हो, िन� िनधा१ौरत "Onetime conversion fee" ঋा� कर एवं अ� िनधा१ौरत शतॵ के पूण१ होने पर Lease Hold से Free Hold पौरवत१न कर सकेगा –

¶31

4

¶32

ॿO	शहर का नाम	Onetime conversion fee (in %)	^”
1.	राँची	15%
			”

¶33

8. From bare perusal of the aforesaid notification, there is no quarrel that 15% conversion fee is to be paid by the lessee of the property for conversion from lease hold to free hold. However, the bone of contention is with regards to taking the current value of the property in question in its present form.

¶34

At this stage, it is necessary to go back to the facts that originally only the land was leased out in perpetuity to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent-Board used to lease-out two types of properties; one is the vacant land and another is the land with building and in the case at hand, only the land was leased-out and the petitioner himself has constructed a house over the said land. Thus, it cannot be conceived that the respondent-Board will be benefitted by any action of the lessee.

¶35

9. The aforesaid proposition can also be understood by way of an example that as to why the Respondent-Board is entitled for 15% conversion fee only on the property which it leased-out to its lessee. In a case, where the Respondent-Board has leased-out a plot to Mr. A, for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs measuring an area of 3 decimal of land. Likewise, the Respondent-Board has also leased-out a property of the same area and vacant land to Mr. B for the same price at the time of initial lease. However, Mr. A constructed a single storeyed building and Mr. B constructed

¶36

5

¶37

triple storeyed building, then certainly the value of the property of Mr. A, will be much lesser than the value of the property of Mr. B who has constructed a three storeyed building. Therefore, it would be unthinkable to conceive that the Respondent-Board will charge approximately three times more from Mr. B than what it would charge from Mr. A for converting their respective lease-hold land to free-hold land.

¶38

10. Therefore, this Court holds that the Respondent-Board is only entitled for 15% conversion fee on the property which was actually leased-out at the time of agreement and not upon the construction which was solely made by the lessee. In other word, the Respondent-Board is entitled for 15% of the current value of the leased-out property as per the “Lease Agreement” entered between the parties . In the case at hand, since only land was leased out to the Petitioner, the Respondents are not entitled for the fee on the construction part which was made by the petitioner. The notification has nowhere authorized the Respondents to charge anything more than what was initially leased out.

¶39

Accordingly, it is held that the demand letter issued by the 4^th respondent on 12.03.2024 (Annexure-3) is correct and the subsequent demand letter issued by the 4^th respondent on 08.05.2024 (Annexure-7) which is impugned herein, is illegal and without jurisdiction and against the intent of the notification.

¶40

11. Hence, letter dated 08.05.2024 (Annexure-7) is quashed and set aside. The Respondent-Board is directed to issue a formal letter of free-hold land, since it is an admitted case that

¶41

6

¶42

the Petitioner had already deposited Rs.15,12,695/- being 15% of the current rate of the land as demanded by the 4^th respondent vide its letter dated 12.03.2024.

¶43

Since the Petitioner has already paid the amount as demanded by Annexure-3, the entire exercise of issuing formal letter of conversion shall be done within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶44

12. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, also stands closed.

¶45

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶46

vikas/A . F . R

¶47

7

Azad Kumar Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Pr Secretary Department of Urban Development and Housing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad Kumar Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Pr Secretary Department of Urban Development and Housing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rang Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Vs State Bank of India Represented through Its Zonal Manager

Raj Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Somra Rahariya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Singh Sardar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Revenue Registration Land Reforms

Babita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand