ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the commonality of the controversy in both the aforesaid writ petitions, it was thought apposite to hear them analogously and accordingly, they were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed off by the present singular order.

(2.) The first writ petition i.e. CWJC No, 7445 of 2004 has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 28/2/2004 passed by the Collector, Patna, whereby and whereunder, the prayer made by the petitioner for considering him as the original lessee, has been rejected, whereas the second writ petition i.e. CWJC No. 9593 of 2004 has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 2/8/2004, contained in Memo dtd. 31/7/2004, whereby the petitioner has been informed that while resuming the Khas Mahal Land settled vide temporary lease deed, bearing plot no. 52, Block-C, admeasuring an area of 5 katha and 8 dhurs, along with the structures made thereon, in light of the order contained in letter no. 786 dtd. 10/7/2004 of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, it is ordered to take the said land along with the construction made thereon into Government's possession, thus the possession of the same be handed over to the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar within one month. It is thus apparent that the land in question is the same in both the aforesaid two cases.

(3.) For the sake of convenience the facts of the first case would be referred to hereinafter. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the State of Bihar settled a Khas Mahal land admeasuring 5 katha and 8 dhurs, appertaining to plot no. 52, Block-C, Halka no. 5, Thana no. 20A, situated at Kadamkuan in the name of one Sadashiv Prasad by means of a registered deed of perpetual lease dtd. 15/11/1942 (registered on 17/11/1942) and the lessee was given an absolute right of transfer as also there was no need to take any kind of permission from the State Government before transfer or sale of the same, as is apparent from the registered sale deed annexed as Annexure-1 to the second writ petition. The aforesaid Shri Sadashiv Prasad as also his wife Smt. Saraswati Devi died in the year 1976, whereafter one Shri P.R. Prasad and his two brothers became the rightful owner of the entire house/plot in question and their names were mutated, subsequently after the death of the aforesaid Sadashiv Prasad and Smt. Saraswati Devi. It has been further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the eldest daughter of late Sadashiv Prasad and Smt. Saraswati Devi namely, Malti Devi had filed a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 77 of 1980 before the Ld. court of Subordinate Judge, Patna for partition of the house in question, situated at Patna and other parental properties situated at Buxar, claiming 1/8th share therein. The said Malti Devi died subsequently and was substituted by one Ajit Kumar and his brothers as plaintiffs in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 77 of 1980. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1986- 87, the ground floor of the house in question was let out to one M/s. Atul Carrier for commercial purposes, whereafter a complaint was made in this regard and upon enquiry by the government authorities, the allegation was found to be true, as such a proposal for cancellation of the lease deed was made by the Collector, however, one time relaxation was given to the effect that if the existing lessees wanted to take a fresh lease, they could take the same on payment of penal rent and salami at the market rate, whereupon one of the sons of late Sadashiv Prasad namely Shri P.R. Prasad had engaged in correspondence with the Collector, Patna and vide letter dtd. 18/9/2001, the said P.R. Prasad had informed the Collector, Patna that he was ready to enter into a fresh lease with respect to the aforesaid land in question but since no notice has been issued with regard to cancellation of the lease in question, cancelling the lease deed, without granting any opportunity to explain the matter personally, would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice.