BHARAT BHUSAN DEVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court for restraining respondent-State and in particular respondent Nos. 5 and 11 from demolishing petitioner's ancestral house and reconstructing upon it. Respondent no. 5 is the District Education Officer, begusarai and respondent No. 11 is the headmaster, Savitri Uchh Vidyalaya, Ulao, district-Begusarai. They are both State Government employees. On earlier occasion, the state Counsel accepted notice on behalf of all State Officials who are the only respondents and a comprehensive counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 5 and 11. A rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner to the said counter-affidavit. With consent of parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) THE dispute here relates primarily to the premises of Savitri Uchh Vidyalaya at ulao in the District of Begusarai. In substance, the petitioner's assertion is that the building in which the school is housed is the ancestral residential house of the petitioner's family. The building was leased out by a registered lease deed dated 8-5-1954 for fifteen years for the said school. The school was started by the ancestors of the petitioner themselves. About two hundred yards away from the school was another substantial piece of vacant land admeasuring five acres and fourteen decimals. This land was gifted by a registered gift deed to the school aforesaid by the ancestors of the petitioner on the 16th of August, 1954. It would, thus, be seen that the land stood transferred to the school by a registered deed of gift whereas the school building was merely rented/leased to the school. The school was thus, a lessee/tenant taking the building which belonged to the ancestors of the petitioner. It is then stated that once the lease expired, the school became month to month tenant and continued to pay Rs. 2/-as monthly rent. Subsequently, the State government took over various schools. This school was also taken over. It became a Government school but the land on which the school building was there was neither acquired nor taken over. After take over, the district Education Officer conducted a survey and enquiry and submitted a report vide his Memo No. 8681 dated 21 st October, 1986 (Annexure-? ). The said report clearly stated that the ancestors of the petitioner had gifted about five acres of land then the said report refers to the payment of rent for the school building but so far as enhancement of rent is concerned, he clearly says that there is no document to support the same but so far as payment of rent is concerned, it is not disputed. Paragraphs-6, 7 and the conclusion of this report, is important. Paragraph-6 clearly admits payment of rent but it says that this low rent itself indicates that the building was "virtually gifted" to the Government. Paragraph-7 mentions spending government money on repairs of this building was not proper. Conclusion clearly states that if the landlord could be persuaded to execute a gift deed in respect of the said building to the State, the school could continue therein but if the State could not persuade the landlord to gift the building then the school should be shifted out and its name changed.

(3.) PETITIONER, on basis of lease and the specific assertion that neither he nor his ancestors ever gifted the building in which the school is housed to the State or the school, has asserted that the school was mere tenant on expiry of the lease aforesaid. The tenant had no right to demolish the building itself even for the purposes of reconstructing it. This was clearly arbitrary, capricious and high-handed attitude of the State which could only be stopped by this Court as vehement pleas of the petitioner to the district administration and police yielded no result.