Patna High Court
Rajeev Ranjan Pd. And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 10 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8616 of 2001
======================================================
1 (a) Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
(b) Sanjay Kumar
(c) Manoj Kumar
(d) Rakhi Sinha
(e) Rasi Sinha
All are son and daughter of Late Jagat Nandan Prasad, resident of Block No.
G, Kadamkuan, P.S. Kadamkuan Town and District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Collector, Patna
4. Additional Collector, Patna
5. Anchal Adhikari, Patna Sadar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 10-05-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents.
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed for quashing the letter bearing memo no. 1161
dated 25.06.2001 (Annexure-4) issued by the Collector, Patna
(respondent no. 3) whereby and whereunder the lease deed of the
petitioners have been cancelled and has resumed the land in
question including residential house and structures standing
Patna High Court CWJC No.8616 of 2001 dt. 10-05-2022
thereupon belonging to the petitioners; further directed to the
petitioners to handover possession of the same to the Anchal
Adhikari, Patna, Sadar (respondent no. 5) within one week of
receipt of the letter.
Briefly stated the facts of the case as stated in the writ
petition that 0.109 acre equivalent to 3 kathas 9.5 dhurs piece of
land was leased out permanently from generation to generation
from 21.09.1935 to late Sri Gokhulanand Prasad, grand father of the
petitioners by the Collector, Patna on behalf of the Secretary of the
State of India in council by a registered lease deed dated
23.02.1936. The grand father of the petitioners after the grant of
permanent lease from generation to generation constructed a
dwelling house on the land in question.
In the year 1996, the father of the petitioners received a
show cause notice bearing Memo No. 1173 dated 18.06.1996 from
the Additional Collector, Patna asking him why the lease of the land
in question should not be cancelled for violated the terms and
conditions of the lease agreement. The father of the petitioners
gave his reply to the show cause notice stating therein that he had
not violated any terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
The Collector having not found reply to the show cause
satisfactory and recommended cancellation of the lease agreement.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the action of the respondent authority is wholly
Patna High Court CWJC No.8616 of 2001 dt. 10-05-2022
unsustainable in law on the ground that there is no specific
provision for direct resumption under the lease agreement and
resumption according to Rule 21 of the Khas Mahal Manual can be
made only for public purposes and according to Rule 22 of the Khas
Mahal Manual, the Collector can take steps or direct possession of
the property in question only under the order of a competent civil
court.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents stating therein that as per Clause 6 of the Agreement
the lessee will not use the said plot for any commercial gains except
with the consent of the lessor. Clause 7 of the Agreement reveals if
any breach or non-observance of any clause shall allow the lessor to
annul the lease and take over the land in question after serving
notice to the lessee.
In the year 1995-96 in course of physical inspection of
the land in question, it was found that the lessee has violating the
terms and conditions of the agreement. Accordingly the petitioners
were given notice vide letter dated 18.06.1996. The lessee gave
their reply to the show cause notice stating therein that they had
not violated any terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
The respondents recommended for the annulment of
lease in question vide letter no. 93 dated 01.04.1997 to Divisional
Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna vide letter no.
516 dated 04.08.1997 has approved the recommendation and lastly
Patna High Court CWJC No.8616 of 2001 dt. 10-05-2022
the department accepted the recommendation with a direction to
resume the land in question.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that lease in question being perpetual lease cannot be
subject to any interference by the State. The lease in question has
created a vested legal right in the lease holders to the exclusion of
others and the contractual obligation casted on the parties to the
lessee would bind the parties untill the lease is determined by the
competent forum (Civil Court).
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his
submissions relied upon the following judgments :
(i) Shri Sanjay Singh Vs. Patna Municipal
Corporation reported in 2021 (1) BLJ 5.
(ii) Uday Sinha and others Vs. The State of Bihar
and others, reported in 2021 (5) BLJ 517.
(iii) Khas Mahal Citizen Welfare Society Vs. The
State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 (1)
PLJR 277.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have also submitted
that the aforesaid judgments rendered by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court has also been upheld by a Division Bench in the case of
The State of Bihar and others Vs. Khas Mahal Citizen Welfare
Society reported in 2017(3) PLJR 662. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the aforesaid judgment rendered
Patna High Court CWJC No.8616 of 2001 dt. 10-05-2022
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khas Mahal Citizen
Welfare Society (supra) has also been upheld by a judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The
State of Bihar and others Vs. Khas Mahal Citizen Welfare
Society reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 628 (SC).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits merely by an
administrative/executive order, lease deed in question can neither
be cancelled nor possession of the land in question can be resumed
unilaterally and the respondents are required to take recourse to
the due process of law under the rule 21 and 22 of the Khas Mahal
Mannual by invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court by
filing appropriate suit and not otherwise. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that the Collector, Patna has cancelled
the lease deeds in question and directed for resumption of the
possession of the land in question, which is contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Express
Newspapers Private Limited and others Vs. Union of India and
others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 872 as also contrary to the law
laid down by this Court in a judgment in the case of The Gait Public
Library and Institute Vs. The State of Bihar and others,
reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 585.
Learned counsel for the State is also not in a position to
contest the stand in view of the judicial pronouncement noted
above and fairly submits that the present writ petition is squarely
Patna High Court CWJC No.8616 of 2001 dt. 10-05-2022
covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of (i)
Shri Sanjay Singh Vs. Patna Municipal Corporation reported in
2021 (1) BLJ 5, (ii) Uday Sinha and others Vs. The State of
Bihar and others, reported in 2021 (5) BLJ 517,(iii) Khas
Mahal Citizen Welfare Society Vs. The State of Bihar and others,
reported in 2016 (1) PLJR 277 and the same has also upheld by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The State of
Bihar and others Vs. Khas Mahal Citizen Welfare Society
reported in 2017(3) PLJR 662.
For the reasons aforementioned, the letter bearing memo
no. 1161 dated 25.06.2001 (Annexure-4) issued by the Collector,
Patna cannot be upheld and is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 10.05.2022
Transmission Date N.A.
