Patna High Court
Badri Narayan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Collector’s reasoned order of 21‑01‑1997 was valid and not liable to interference, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners claim that their grandfather Bhola Singh obtained a 30‑year lease of Khas Mahal land in 1939, which was supposed to be renewable, and that the lease should have been renewed despite an application filed six years after expiry. The State and respondents argue that the lease expired in 1969, the renewal application was untimely, and the land had been possessed and settled in favour of respondent No.6 (Rama Prasad Verma’s family) since the 1950s, with appropriate revenue approvals. The High Court had earlier set aside the Collector’s 1993 order for not hearing the petitioners and directed a fresh hearing, after which the Collector issued an order on 21‑01‑1997 rejecting the renewal. The Court examined the procedural history, the lease terms, the revenue reports, and the applicability of Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, concluding that the Collector acted within his powers and that the writ court cannot adjudicate the factual disputes. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the interim order vacated.
Issues considered
- The Collector’s authority to review and set aside the Additional Collector’s order granting lease renewal.
- Whether the lease renewal application filed after the lease expiry complies with the lease conditions and statutory requirements.
- Whether the land can be resumed under Rule 21 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual without a valid public purpose.
- Whether the petitioners retain any legal right to possession after decades of continuous possession by the respondents.
- The jurisdiction of the writ court to decide complex factual and evidentiary issues in a lease‑settlement dispute.
Subjects
- lease renewal
- Khas Mahal land
- possession
- Rule 21
- Rule 22
- land settlement
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1723 of 1997
======================================================
1.1. Sunil kumar Singh Son of late Badri Narayan Singh Resident of Village-
-Sarwarpur, P.S. Tariyani, District- Sheohar.
1.2. Sujit kumar Singh Son of late Badri Narayan Singh Resident of Village-
-Sarwarpur, P.S. Tariyani, District- Sheohar.
1.3. Sudhir Kumar Singh Son of late Badri Narayan Singh Resident of Village-
-Sarwarpur, P.S. Tariyani, District- Sheohar.
2.1. Anil kumar Singh Son of late Rana Kedar Singh Resident of Village-
-Sarwarpur, P.S. Tariyani, District- Sheohar.
3. Sambhu Prasad Singh Son of Late Parabhu Singh Resident of Village-
Sarwarpur, Police Station Tariyani, District-Sheohar (Sitamarhi) At Present
Residing at Dumra District-Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector of the District-Sitamarhi
3. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi, Sadar, Sitamarhi
5. Circle Officer, Dumra, Sitamarhi.
6.1. Sarat Chandra Verma Son of Late Rama Prasad Verma husband of the
respondent no.6 Resident of Village- Dumara Police Station- Dumara,
District- Sitamarhi.
6.2. Subodh Kumar Verma Son of Late Rama Prasad Verma husband of the
respondent no.6 Resident of Village- Dumara Police Station- Dumara,
District- Sitamarhi.
6.3. Smt. Pratima Devi Wife of Sri Anjani Kumar alias Lal Babu Resident of
Village and P.O. Paratapur Police Station- Belsand, District- Sitamarhi.
6.4. Smt. Purnima Devi alias Neelam Wife of Shri Laxman Prasad Srivastava
Resident of Village and P.O. Harharpur Pirauta Police Station- Baniyapur,
Distt- Saran.
6.5. Parmila Daughter of Late Rama Prasad Verma Resident of Village- Dumra,
Police Station- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.
6.6. Niblu Daughter of Late Rama Prasad Verma Resident of Village- Dumra,
Police Station- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
For the Resp. No. 6 : Mrs. Shama Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Vijayansh Pratap Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
2/32
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2026
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for:
(i) the issuance of an appropriate
writ, order or direction to the respondents to
show cause as to why not the order dated
21.01.1997 passed by the respondent no.2
(Annexure 1) as also the order dated
11.12.1980 passed by the respondent no.5
(Annexure-2) be not quashed;
(ii) further writ, order or direction to
the respondent no.2 to renew the lease in
favour of the petitioners for a further period of
30 years in view of the order dated 30.11.1992
(Annexure-3);
(iii) further restrain the respondent
no.6 from taking possession of the disputed
house on the basis of the impugned order.
FACTS:
(A) PETITIONER’s VERSION:
2. The petitioner’s grandfather, Bhola Singh got the
lease of the Khas Mahal land in the year 1939 for a period of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
3/32
thirty years. As per the terms and condition of the lease,
he/family members are/were entitled for its renewal of 30
years from (the period of the first lease). The case of the
petitioners is/are that in view of the terms of lease providing
two renewals, the order of the Collector in settling the land
with the respondent no.6 by way of lease deed is wholly
illegal particularly when the original lessee had applied for its
renewal in the year 1976 though after expiry of the first term
in the year 1969.
3. The details of the land in question for which the
lease deeds were made is/are as under:-
“Khata No. 28, Plot No. 1030, (New
Khata No. 833, New Plot No. 2825), (Area 15.5
decimal) situated in Ward no.4, Khasmahal
Plot No. G-9, Village and Circle-Dumra,
Anchal-Dumra, District-Sitamarhi.”
4. The contention of the petitioners is/are that after
the settlement of the leased land in the year 1939, Bhola Singh
constructed a residential house where their family members
are/were residing, a fact also found true by the Circle Officer
in his earlier local inspection. In the revisional survey held in
the year 1976 also, the petitioners were found in possession
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
4/32
over the disputed land. Further, at no point of time, either the
petitioners or their father agreed to transfer the lease land to
the respondent no.6 (now substituted by her heirs).
5. The case further is that so far as the ancestors of
the respondents are concerned, late Rama Prasad Verma was
allowed to live in one portion of the house by the petitioners’
grandfather, Bhola Singh because both were friends and late
Rama Prasad Verma had no house to live. The petitioners’
grandfather was a simple person and late Rama Prasad Verma
committed fraud upon him by taking electric connection in his
name as also depositing the Municipality tax, again in his
name. The contention is that late Rama Prasad Verma created
several forged documents in his name having no relevance for
the purpose of lease.
6. The case of the petitioner(s) further is/are that as
per the lease deed between the State respondents and Bhola
Singh, on the expiry of 30 years lease period, the same was to
be renewed. Further, there is also the government resolution
issued vide memo no. 575 dated 18.11.1987 that in case of
default committed by the lessee, the land can be re-settled
after the imposition of some fine.
7. The contention is that on 25.08.1978, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
5/32
respondent no.5 sent a notice to the petitioners for renewal of
the lease although the petitioners had already filed an
application dated 12.02.1976 before the L.R.D.C., Sitamarhi
for its renewal (Annexure-9). Further, the petitioners are/were
in possession of the land on which erroneously, the claim has
been laid by the respondent no.6/heirs.
8. Unfortunately, all these facts were overlooked by
the Collector, Sitamarhi vide his order dated 04.11.1993 while
interfering with the order passed by the Additional Collector
on 30.11.1992.
9. The petitioners thereafter moved this Court in
CWJC No. 1554 of 1994 which was disposed of on
07.12.1994 by quashing the order dated 04.11.1993 and
directing the Collector, Sitamarhi to re-hear the matter.
10. However, instead of appreciating the facts of the
case, once again the Collector, Sitamarhi vide an order dated
21.01.1997 rejected the claim of the petitioners forcing them
to file the present petition.
11. In support of the case, the petitioners have relied
on the order dated 21.12.1994 by the Division Bench of
Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2671 of 1994 (The Gait
Public Library and Institute, Gardanibagh, Patna through
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
6/32
its President vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) reported in 1995
(1) PLJR 585 with specific reference to paragraphs 23 to 27
which read as follows:
“23. Admittedly, no three months
notice has been given to lessee nor any steps
have been taken to determine the compensation
for the buildings etc. From perusal of the
impugned order (Annexure-7) it appears that
the government has taken the decision to
resume the land on the ground that petitioner is
using the land and building for purposes other
than for which the land was leased. It is stated
apart from running the library the premises is
being used for running Sishu Bharti School,
ladies training centre, Music training centre
etc. The Collector on the basis of decision of
the State Government to resume the land has
passed the order under Rule 21 of the Bihar
Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual
resuming the land for public purposes. The
Collector has not stated in the impugned order
regarding the public purpose. Resumption on
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
7/32
the ground of breach of the terms of the tenancy
could not be said to be a public purpose as
mentioned in the rule.
24. From paragraph 6 of the counter
affidavit it appears that the land is being
resumed for the purposes of handing over the
same to a College. It means land is being
resumed for use of persons other than
government. In such a situation according to
Rule 21 land cannot be resumed and the State
government has to acquired the land under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus for
the aforesaid reasons impugned order suffers
from serious legal infirmities and accordingly
not sustainable in law.
25. There is another hurdle in the
way of the respondents. Rule 22 provides inter
alia that when in a lease deed it is provided
that, in the event of certain contingencies
occurring, the Collector will enter upon and
take khas or direct possession of the property, it
must be understood that, where the settlement
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
8/32
holder objects possession cannot be taken save
under the orders of a competent Civil Court.
26. From the terms of the lease it is
clear that there is provision of taking
possession on certain contingencies and as
such Rule 22 applies. The petitioner has
objected to taking of the possession by filing a
petition and in that view of the matter the
respondent can taken possession under the
order of competent Civil Court. They cannot
take forcible possession.
27. By the impugned order the State
has attempted to take possession of the land in
a purported exercise of Rule 21. It has no
applicability in the case and as such the
impugned order has no sanction in law and has
to be quashed. The action of the respondent
State and the Collector and his Subordinate
officers in taking forcible possession on the
basis of the said order is also unauthorised. As
stated above, the petitioner is continuing in
possession for more them 70 years over the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
9/32
land and has constructed building and the
same is being used as a library and institute
and for some other purpose also. Even after the
expiry of the lease its possession is juridical
one and that can be taken away only by the
process known in law. The respondents have no
authority in law to resume and take possession
of the land by virtue of an order which stated
above is nonest in the eye of law. Accordingly,
the impugned order is quashed and it is held
that the act of the respondents in taking
possession of the land in question is
unauthorised and arbitrary. In view of such
high handed act on the part of the State and its
officers this Court with a view to maintain
majesty of law has to pass an order for
restoration of possession of the petitioner.
12. The further reliance has been placed on another
learned Single Judge judgment of Patna High Court in the case
of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and
analogous cases vs. The State of Bihar & & Ors. reported in
the 1996 (2) PLJR 621 with reference to paragraph 29 which
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
10/32
read as follows:
“29. From the admitted factual
position in this case it cannot be said that the
petitioner Company was a trespasser. The
petitioner Company came on the plot in
question on the basis of a registered lease dead
between the parties. Even if it is assumed that
the lease between the parties have expired, the
petitioner Company cannot be called either a
trespasser or an encroacher.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
the order dated 30.11.1992 (wrongly typed as 31.11.1992)
is/was the final order which came to be passed by the
Additional Collector, Sitamarhi on transfer of the appeal by
the Collector of the district. As such, the order dated
04.11.1993 and the subsequent order dated 21.01.1997 passed
by the Collector, Sitamarhi are nothing but review of the
order dated 30.11.1992 for which the respondent no. 2 had got
no power. Thus the two orders dated 04.11.1993 and
21.01.1997 are fit to be interfered with.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners conclude by
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
11/32
submitting that once the deed was executed, the same cannot
be annulled save and except in accordance with law. Further,
the Collector, Sitamarhi had no power to review the order
passed by the Additional Collector. In that background, the
order passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi needs interference.
(b) RESPONDENT NO.6 VERSION:
15. On the other hand, the case of the respondent
no.6/heirs is/are that:
(i) the entire claim of the writ petitioners flow from a
lease of the year 1939 which was for a period of 30 years and
came to an end on 20.09.1969 (as it was registered on
20.09.1939). Further, by their own showing, an application
for renewal was filed for the first time only on 12.02.1976
(Annexure-9) much after the expiry of the lease in question;
(ii) the condition no. 14 of the lease deed (Annexure-
4) would show that the request for renewal is/was to be made
before to the Collector three months prior to the expiration of
the lease and this request too was to be entertained only when
he had performed all the terms and conditions of the lease
whereas by the own showing of the writ petitioner(s), the
request for renewal was made more than six years after expiry
thereof, the writ petitioner has got no subsisting legal rights to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
12/32
maintain the entire proceeding appertaining to the lease in
question.
16. The contention of the respondents further is/are
that:
(a) the land in question was vacant with no claimant
in possession of the same and as such on the
information/request made by the original lessee Bhola Singh
in the year 1955, the husband of the respondent no.6, Rama
Prasad Verma came in possession of the land and also
constructed a house;
(b) on 05.09.1962, the husband of the respondent
no.6 (now substituted by heirs), formally applied for the
settlement of the land through an application before the
Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Sitamarhi on
05.01.1962. On the said application, under the orders of the
Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sitamarhi, the Circle
Officer, Dumara conducted an enquiry and he came to the
conclusion that the land was lying vacant, and the same was
in possession of Rama Prasad Verma for a long period.
Further, the rent of the land in question has been deposited by
Sri Verma for and on behalf of the original settlee. The
official, have recorded that he tried to trace the original
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
13/32
settlee, but was unable to locate. Accordingly, the
recommendation was made to cancel the settlement and the
land be recorded in the name of the respondent no.6;
(c) it has to be noted that after 1944, no rent was
paid by the original settlee, hence all the rents of the land in
question from 1944-45 and thereafter were cleared by the
husband of the respondent no.6 alone and in the receipt, as
depositor, his name is/was very much recorded;
(d) pursuant to the above enquiry, the D.C.L.R.,
Sitamarhi vide memo no. 500 dated 08.08.1962 recommended
to the Additional Collector that the original settlee has never
exercised right, title and possession and the same was only
exercised by the husband of the respondent no.6 and therefore
in view of his possession, the land be settled with him as the
original settlee, Bhola Singh has violated the terms and the
conditions thereof;
(e) this followed the letter dated 17.10.1962 by the
Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sitamarhi that before considering the settlement with
the husband of the respondent no.6 Rama Prasad Verma,
certain preliminary enquiry is required as to how much of
land is left out, how much is vacant and whether they would
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
14/32
be required for governmental use or not;
f) thereafter, vide letter no. 1301 dated 11.08.1963,
the S.D.O, Sitamarhi wrote to the Additional Collector that the
case of Rama Prasad Verma, settlee is valid and the same be
done as the original settlee has abandoned the land for a long
time;
g) thereafter, the house plan of the respondent no.6
was sanctioned by the Vice Chairman of the Notified Area
Committee, Dumara being the prescribed authority. The
husband of the respondent no.6 thereafter made construction
in the year 1966 and is living there since then. The contention
is that after the construction of the house, it was Rama Prasad
Verma and after his death, his son who has been paying the
holding tax to the Dumara Notified Area Committee since
1968 till date and the copy of the receipt dated 08.11.1968 and
02.11.1993 has been brought on record (Annexure-H);
h) the further stand is that much before the sanction
of the house plan, a recommendation was also made that the
claim of the husband of the respondent no.6 for settlement be
placed before the settlement committee constituted by the
government wherein all the official members had made
recommendation including the Vice Chairman of the Notified
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
15/32
Area Committee;
i) however, unfortunately, the matter remained
pending for formal settlement. In the meantime, some
information were sought for from the husband of the
respondent no.6 which was duly responded to the DCLR,
Sitamarhi;
j) the further case is that the Revisional Survey
Khatiyan was finally published on 02.09.1968 in respect of
plot no. G-9, Khata No. 863, the possession of Rama Prasad
Verma only was shown in the column no.7 (Annexure-I);
k) the contention is that there are number of
correspondence between the husband of the respondent no.6
with the Circle Officer and the DCLR as also the Additional
Collector with regard to the various clarifications sought, for
suitably replied (Annexure-J);
l) further, the Title Suit No. 9/1984 was filed by the
said Rama Prasad Verma against the tenants namely Umesh
Prasad, and others. In the said suit, an application for
intervention was filed by the son of Prabhu Singh (the present
writ petitioner no.3) asserting Title over the land;
(m) in the said case, vide detailed order dated
11.08.1984, the Munsif, Sitamarhi, West was pleased to reject
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
16/32
the intervener application;
(n) having failed in all his efforts, the petitioner in
the month of October, 1993 forcibly entered into the house of
the respondent no.6 and thereafter, the SDO Sadar, Sitamarhi,
in the light of the order by the Collector directed for posting of
Police Forces to ensure the removal of undesirable elements
which included the petitioner from the house.
17. The stand of the respondents is that the
petitioners never produced any death certificate to support the
year of death of Bhola Singh.
18. Further submission of the respondents is/are that
the stand of the petitioners that the husband of the respondent
no.6 was a tenant in the house of the petitioner’s father is
wholly incorrect, misleading and false. The fact is that more
than 6 years after the expiry of the lease, an application for
renewal was made in the year 1976 in a malafide manner
followed by a misleading enquiry report by the Circle Officer
in collusion with the petitioners. Later, when the authorities,
including the Additional Collector, Sub-Divisional Officer
and the DCLR, inquired into the matter, they were satisfied
about the settlement of the land with the husband of the
respondent no.6.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
17/32
19. Further, a recommendation was made by the
Circle Officer, Dumra vide dated 11.12.1980. The contention
is that the Collector is the authority to settle the Khas Mahal
land and as such, he rightly took up the matter earlier on
04.11.1993. Further, the order dated 21.01.1997 was passed
after the remand and as such, it should be considered as the
original order in the process of settlement.
20. The further submission is that the
recommendation of the Circle Officer dated 11.12.1980
(Annexure-2) was a recommendation but the final decision
pertaining to the same always vested with the Collector alone.
21. The contention is that all the questions that the
Collector had no power to entertain the appeal against the
order passed by the Additional Collector is completely devoid
of merit. Further, once the matter came to the Patna High
Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioners themselves,
the writ petition was disposed of with the directions given to
the Collector, Sitamarhi to pass an order after hearing the
parties afresh. As such, he rightly heard the matter and passed
the order in question.
22. The respondents have taken this Court to salient
features of lease deed which read as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
18/32
(a) the lease can be canceled if the
building is not completed within three years of
the date on which it was executed or within
such further period as the Collector may allow
the question of renewal of lease was to be
considered only after an application was to be
filed three months prior to the expiry.
(b) if the lessee shall have duly
observed and performed all the terms and
conditions, he may be entitled for one more
renewal.
23. The reiteration of the respondent no.6 is that the
petitioner’s family had abandoned the land in question
immediately after the lease deed was rented, not made any
construction within the permissible time in terms of the lease.
Therefore, there was no legal claim existing for the
petitioner/family. The contention is that all these rights
flowing from the lease pertains to complicated questions of the
fact which is required to be determined by taking proper
evidence before a competent Civil Court and cannot be
adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
19/32
24. The further case of the respondents is/are that an
amount of Rs.95,000/- has already been deposited by the
respondent no.6 for settlement of the land in question being
the ‘salami’ amount with the requisite fine. They are/were
residing in the house for decades after construction which also
found incorporated in the reports of the Revenue Authorities.
25. The contention is that, a mere perusal of
Annexure-2 would show that the original lessee, Bhola Singh
or his son, Prabhu Singh never constructed any house and that
for the last several decades, it is/was in possession of the
respondent no.6/family, a fact also confirmed in the enquiry
made by the Circle Inspector who found that since the year
1954-55, Rama Prasad Verma was in possession of the land
and had earlier constructed a ‘Kachcha’ house and thereafter a
‘Pucca’ house.
26. This fact has also been noticed by the revenue
authorities that much before the expiry of the lease in
question, the original lessee had abandoned it and atleast there
is positive evidence that since 1963, the case of the respondent
no.6 (through her husband Rama Prasad Verma, who was then
alive), was being considered for settlement. This fact has also
been incorporated in the order dated 21.01.1997.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
20/32
27. So far as the cases of the Gait Public Library
(supra) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
(supra) are concerned, the submission of learned counsel for
the respondents is that the two cases are not at all applicable in
the present case inasmuch as in the aforesaid two cases, they
were in continuous possession of the property in question and
there was allegation of violation of lease deed and in that
background, the Hon’ble Court interfered in the matter
holding that the respondents ought to have acted strictly in
terms of the lease deed.
28. The contention is that in the present case,
admittedly, the grandfather of the petitioners abandoned the
property after allowing the father of the respondents to reside
in it. In fact, it was Rama Prasad Verma who paid
rent/electricity bills and even prior to the expiration of the
lease deed, there are official documents in this regard to prove
the possession of Rama Prasad Verma over it.
29. The respondents conclude by submitting that
once the Patna High Court vide an order dated 07.12.1994 (in
CWJC No. 1554 of 1994) after setting aside the earlier orders
directed the Collector, Sitamarhi to pass an order, the
Collector, Sitamarhi vide an order dated 21.01.1997 passed a
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
21/32
reasoned order which need no interference. The writ petition
thus is fit to be dismissed.
(C) STATE’s VERSION:
30. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 have also filed their
reply and according to them, after the order/direction passed
by this Hon'ble Court on 07.12.1994 in C.W.J.C. No. 1554 of
1994, the case was heard by the Collector, Sitamarhi afresh
after giving proper notice to the parties as also hearing them,
the final order was passed on 21.01.1997.
31. Further, Annexure 5 to the writ petition is not the
‘Khatian’ rather it is the extract of Jamabandi Register II for
the village Dumra. In Khatian R. S. P. No. 2825, it is recorded
in the name of P.W.D. in Khata No. 863 and possession of
Rama Prasad Verma is mentioned in remarks column.
32. After the execution of lease deed, the same was
abandoned by the original settlee, the house was not
constructed and the petitioners’ family were not in possession,
rather on inspection, it was found that late Rama Prasad Verma
was in possession. The lessee or his heir did not file any
petition on time for renewal within the period of 30 years and
before the expiry of the terms of the lease.
33. In fact, from the year 1955 itself, there are
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
22/32
official documents to show that Rama Prasad Verma
constructed house and started living in it. Again, in the year
1962-63, the recommendation for electric supply as also
execution of lease deed in his favour have been found to be on
record.
34. Further, as the lessee was not in possession of
the land and no application for renewal of the lease was filed
before the expiry of the lease, the order of the Collector,
Sitamarhi to take steps for settlement of the land with person
in possession was perfectly justified.
35. The stand of the State respondent is that the
provisional survey was not held in the year 1976 rather it
started in the year 1959-60 and finalised in the year 1968
where Rama Prasad Verma was recorded to be in possession
of the land in question.
36. The stand is that the petitioner or his ancestors
were not in possession for several decades prior to the expiry
of the lease and no application for renewal was ever filed
before the expiry of the lease and as such, the government
resolution dated 17.11.87 did not apply in this case. Further,
the respondent no.5 had no authority to send notice (Annexure
16) as the petitioners’ family were not in possession of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
23/32
land in question. The writ petition as such is fit to be
dismissed.
FINDINGS:
37. This Court has gone through the contention of
the parties and has perused the documents on record.
38. The admitted facts of the case is/are that:
(i) one Bhola Singh entered into lease deed with the
government regarding the Khas Mahal land in question on
20.09.1939;
(ii) later, Bhola Singh allowed Rama Prasad Verma
to enter the said land in 1955 who started paying the rent;
(iii) in the year 1962, Rama Prasad Verma applied
for the settlement of the land;
(iv) an enquiry was conducted and after the revenue
authority recorded that the original lease holder could not be
traced, Rama Prasad Verma is residing since long,
recommendation was made for cancellation of the lease deed
and to settle the same with respondent no.6;
(v) in the year 1966, the home plan of Rama Prasad
Verma was sanctioned on the said land whereafter
construction was made;
(vi) however, the settlement of land with Rama
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
24/32
Prasad Verma remained pending with the respondents;
(vii) in the year 1984, an Eviction suit was filed by
Rama Prasad Verma against tenants vide TS No. 9/84. The
petitioners tried to intervene but the same was rejected by the
court;
(viii) in the year 1976, i.e. six years after the expiry
of the lease deed in the year 1969, an application for the
renewal was made;
(ix) this followed the initial reports of the Circle
Officer, Dumra in favour of the petitioners but later the
constant reports of all the revenue authorities are/were that
the land in question is/was with Rama Prasad Verma and as
such, settlement be made with them;
(x) however, the Additional Collector vide an order
dated 30.11.1992 (wrongly recorded as 31.11.1992) made
recommendation for renewal of lease deed in favour of the
petitioners;
(xi) the Collector, Sitamarhi having taken note of all
the facts negated the said recommendation vide an order
dated 04.11.1993;
(xii) the petitioners approached the Patna High
Court in CWJC No. 1554 of 1994 which was allowed on
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
25/32
07.12.1994 with the direction to the Collector, Sitamarhi to
pass an order afresh;
(xiii) accordingly, the matter was taken up afresh by
the Collector, Sitamarhi and after hearing the parties, it
passed the order in question on 21.01.1997. This followed the
present writ petition.
39. This Court has further taken note of the fact that:
(a) on an application submitted by the petitioner’s
family in the year 1976 for the renewal of lease deed, a spot
inspection was made. The ‘Anchal Amin’ in its report dated
12.08.1976 recorded the presence of the petitioner on the said
land;
(b) this followed the Circle Officer’s report dated
20.08.1977 with recommendation for the renewal of the lease
deed which followed an order dated 25.08.1977 by which the
petitioner’s were directed to file the papers;
(c) the respondents in the year 1978 preferred
petition for settlement of land in their favour showing their
presence over it before the Circle Officer, Dumra which led to
Case No. 43 of 1978 who vide an order dated 11.12.1980
made recommendation in favour of the respondents and sent
the matter to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sitamarhi
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
26/32
whereafter it traveled to the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi;
(d) the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi thereafter,
vide an order dated 30.11.1992 (recorded as 31.11.1992) held
that the claim of Rama Prasad Verma is fit to be rejected and
accordingly, made recommendation to the Khas Mahal
Committee (headed by the Collector) to look into the request
of petitioners for the renewal of lease deed.
40. The matter was thereafter taken up by the
Collector, Sitamarhi after an objection was filed by the widow
of Rama Prasad Verma (original respondent no.6) against the
recommendation made by the Additional Collector. The
Collector, Sitamarhi vide an order dated 04.11.1993 held that:
(i) the C.O., Dumra made recommendation
in favour of Rama Prasad Verma on
11.12.1980;
(ii) the D.C.L.R., Sitamarhi West also made
recommendation in his favour on 12.08.1981
and sent the file to the S.D.O.;
(iii) the S.D.O., in turn stamped the
recommendation so made and sent the file to
the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi on
14.10.1981;
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
27/32
(iv) the Additional Collector, thereafter on
19.04.1982 sent recommendation in favour of
Rama Prasad Verma;
(v) further, against the recommendation
made by the Circle Officer on 11.12.1980, an
appeal was preferred vide 97/81 in which
records of case no. 43 of 1978 was called for;
(vi) the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi was
thereafter directed to take a decision;
(vii) the matter was to be heard on
30.11.1992. However, without giving any
hearing to the parties, an order was passed on
that very day by the Additional Collector;
(viii) this followed objection by the family
of Rama Prasad Verma before the Collector,
Sitamarhi;
(ix) on the objection so filed, the file was
summoned on 03.12.1992;
(x) however, the file was not sent by the
Additional Collector and he chose to return it
only on 30.03.1993 upon his transfer and when
he was to handover his charge;
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
28/32
(xi) the Collector, Sitamarhi found several
anamolies in the file and also took note of the
fact that the date 31st never comes in the month
of November. Thereafter, the Collector,
Sitamarhi looked into different documents filed
by the parties and found that Bhola Singh died
in the year 1948. Though it was disputed by the
petitioners but no document was ever produced
to support their claim that he was alive for the
next one decade.
(xii) accordingly, the Collector, Sitamarhi
passed an order for renewal of lease in favour
of respondents herein vide an order dated
04.11.1993.
41. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Patna
High Court in CWJC No. 1554 of 1994 challenging the order
passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi. The same was heard and
disposed of on 07.12.1994 and the order dated 4.11.1993 was
set aside on the ground that the petitioners were not heard and
as such, principle of natural justice was not followed
(Annexure-3 of the petition). The High court further ordered
the Collector, Sitamarhi to hear the matter afresh after giving
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
29/32
proper opportunity to the parties.
42. This Court records that once the Patna High
Court passed an order dated 07.12.1994 in CWJC No. 1554 of
1994, asking the Collector, Sitamarhi to re-hear the parties,
both the earlier orders dated 30.11.1992 of the Additional
Collector, Sitamarhi and the order dated 04.11.1993 by the
Collector, Sitamarhi got merged with the said Writ Court’s
order. Further, in view of the direction given to the Collector,
Sitamarhi to hear the matter afresh, he rightly took up the
matter and passed the reasoned order on 21.10.1997.
43. It is further to be noted that in the order dated
30.11.1992 (recorded as 31.11.1992), the Additional Collector,
Sitamarhi sent the matter to the Khas Mahal Committee
headed by the Collector and it was in the aforesaid
circumstances that the Collector, Sitamarhi took up the matter
and passed the order on 04.11.1993. However, as the
petitioners were not heard, only on that ground, the matter was
remanded back for its fresh hearing by the Patna High Court.
44. In that background, so far as the order dated
21.01.1997 is concerned, once the High Court remanded the
matter back to be heard afresh, the Collector, Sitamarhi rightly
took up the matter and after hearing the parties, was fully
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
30/32
justified in passing the order in question. Thus the contention
of the petitioners that the Collector, Sitamarhi could not have
reviewed the order of the Additional Collector has to be
rejected in the background of the observations made herein.
45. This Court has further taken note of the
petitioners’ own contention that not only Rama Prasad Verma
took electricity connection, he was also paying rent for the
land in question. So far as the resolution no. 575 dated
18.11.1987 is concerned, the same is applicable only during
the period when the lease is existing. There is nothing on
record to show that any application for renewal of the lease
deed was made during the lease period. On the contrary, by
their own showing, they approached the respondents only in
the year 1976 i.e. six years after the lease came to an end.
46. Further, the reports of the revenue authorities
show that both the petitioners as well as the respondents
families were having possession though on the different
portions of the land. The reports clearly show that while the
respondents family are residing in an old quarter century
building; the petitioners’ family actually forcibly entered on
01.10.1993 in 0.3 decimal of land where a ‘Khaprail’ structure
has been recorded. On the complaint so made in the year 1993
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
31/32
about the said forcible entry on 01.10.1993, the respondents
had even ordered their removal.
47. Thus the findings clearly show that the
respondents are residing in the old buildings present there
while the petitioners’ presence have also been recorded in 0.3
decimal of land though in the year 1993. Thus, the
complicated questions are involved in this case which cannot
be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction.
48. So far as the cases of the Hon’ble Apex Court
cited by the petitioners is/are concerned, admittedly, in the
cases of the Gait Public Library (supra) and Hindustan
Petroleum (supra) there were continuous possession which
was/were not in dispute. The respondents alleged violation of
lease deed and in that background, the Court interfered with
the order. Here the government documents show presence of
Rama Prasad Verma since the year 1955 and even allowed the
respondents for the construction of house/use of electricity etc.
In fact, in the year 1962-63 itself, steps were taken for the
execution of lease deed with Rama Prasad Verma recording
that there is no trace of original lease holder. Thus the
aforesaid two orders do not come to the rescue of case and are
not applicable in the present matter. Each and every case has
Patna High Court CWJC No.1723 of 1997 dt.02-02-2026
32/32
different facts and the circumstances and the two orders of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the particular facts and circumstances
are not applicable in the present case.
49. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the
opinion that the reasoned order dated 21.01.1997 passed by
the Collector, Sitamarhi need no interference.
50. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The
interim order stands vacated. No Cost.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 19.01.2026
Uploading Date 02.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.