2026:JHHC:24612 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2902 of 2018 ------ Bokaro Employee Leased House Welfare Society, through its President Shambhu Nath Prasad Gupta, Son of Late Jugal Kishore Prasad Gupta, Resident of Qr. No.2151, Sector VI/A, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS- Sector-VI, Bokaro Steel City, Dist-Bokaro. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/s Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Public Sector Undertaking Company having its registered office at “Ispat Bhavan”, Lodi Road, New Delih-110003 through its Assistant General Manager (E.M.), PS-Fifth Ave. Rd. Institutional Area, Lodi Colony, New Delhi. 2. Bokaro Steel Plant, Unit of M/s Steel Authority of India Limited having its office at “Ispat Bhawan” Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS- Bokaro Steel City, Dist-Bokaro, through its CEO. 3. General Manager (Town Services), Bokaro Steel Plant, Unit of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd., having its office at “Nagar Sewa Bhavan” Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro, Steel City, Dist-Bokaro. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Mahato, Advocate Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate ------ 11/ 17th August, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is a registered society. 3. It is their grievance that the houses of Bokaro Steel Plant were given on lease to the several members of this petitioner who at one point of time were the employees. 4. As per the said long term scheme, there was a condition of transfer in which capital gain has to be paid. 5. It is their grievance that there is unilateral change in the term and conditions of the agreement which was not accepted by the petitioners or any of the members. He submits that the respondents cannot unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, once the agreement has been executed. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Limited, submits that there is no change in the conditions, rather, the mode of calculating capital gains have been explained therein. 2026:JHHC:24612 Page | 2 7. After going through the agreement of lease, I find that there is Clause 3(vii) which prohibits transfer of lease-hold interest of the property initially for a period of five years, from the date of agreement but in exceptional circumstances such as the death of the lessee or if the lessee is become insane or invalid, with the prior permission of the Steel Authority of India Limited, the lease- hold interest can be transferred in favour of the spouse / legal heir/ next of kin of the deceased lessee. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the aforesaid condition. 8. The Clause 3(viii), provides that any transfer of the lease hold interest shall only be affected with prior permission of the lesser on payment of requisite transfer fee, as prescribed by the lessor. 9. In addition to the transfer fee, the lessee would also be required to pay the lesser 15% of the capital gain or 10% of the initial premium. 10. Thus, the agreement already provides for payment of capital gain and payment of transfer fee. In the entire agreement how the capital gain would be calculated has not been mentioned. 11. By the impugned notification, the mode of calculation of capital gain has been prescribed. As per the notice, the capital gain will be the differential amount between the sale price as declared by the lessee or the price as determined by the plant and unit on the basis of valuation by the authorised valuer, whichever is higher. 12. Admittedly, the property belongs to Steel Authority of India Limited which is being leased out to several person. A right has been given to these petitioners or the occupier to transfer the lease but on payment of capital gain. The capital gain will be assessed at the time of transfer which will be the differential amount between the sale price as declared by the lessee or the price as determined by the plant. By doing so, the arbitrary fixation of the sale price has been done away with by the Steel Authority of India Limited as situation may arise where the lessee may reduce the sale price only to avoid payment of actual capital gains. Thus, the Steel Authority of India Limited which is a Public Sector 2026:JHHC:24612 Page | 3 Undertaking has evolved a mechanism to get the unit valued by an authorized valuer who will determine the correct price of the same on the date of transfer. This reduces arbitrary fixation of the sale price by the transferer and gives transparency in the entire transaction. 13. Thus, from what has been held above, I find that no clause of the agreement has been changed or altered or modified. Only the manner of calculation of capital gain has been evolved. Be it noted that the agreement already provided for charging capital gain. 14. Thus, I find no ground to entertain this application, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th August, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 19/08/2026