Patna High Court
Aditya JhunjhunwalaversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the Divisional Commissioner’s eviction order is illegal and cannot be enforced, and the writ petition is disposed with interim protection pending the Collector’s reasoned order.
Summary
The petitioner, Aditya Jhunjhunwala, claimed possession of Khas Mahal plots 22 and 23 based on an agreement with a former lease‑holder and argued that the State’s 2011 Khas Mahal policy could not be applied to pre‑existing leases. The Divisional Commissioner ordered eviction on 1 August 2017 without hearing the petitioner, relying on the expiry of the original lease in 2002. The petitioner sought certiorari to quash that order, mandamus directing the Collector to complete settlement, and interim protection. The court noted that the original leaseholders had not sought renewal and that the petitioner had been allowed to occupy the land pending a decision, but the eviction order was issued without due process and contrary to the earlier Patna High Court judgment (CWJC No. 19325 of 2015) which held the 2011 policy inapplicable to existing leases. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, maintaining the interim protection and directing the Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and issue a reasoned order.
Issues considered
- The order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 01‑08‑2017 was passed without affording a hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
- Whether the 2011 Khas Mahal Policy can be applied to pre‑existing lease agreements.
- Whether the petitioner, who is not an original lease‑holder, can be evicted based on the expiry of the original lease.
- Whether the Collector should be directed to complete the settlement formalities in favour of the petitioner.
Subjects
- Khas Mahal
- lease renewal
- eviction
- certiorari
- mandamus
- natural justice
- land revenue
- pre‑existing lease
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18564 of 2018
======================================================
Aditya Jhunjhunwala, Son of Late Subodh Kumar Jhunjhunwala, resident of
Buddha Marg, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Patna.
4. The Collector, Patna.
5. The Additional Collector (Land Revenue) Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
7 05-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad,
learned State counsel.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for the issuance of or in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order dated
01.08.2017 passed by the learned Divisional
Commissioner, Patna in the Eviction Appeal
No. 105 of 2016 which has been passed
without affording any opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and by which the Eviction
Patna High Court CWJC No.18564 of 2018(7) dt.05-01-2026
2/8
case filed by the Collector Patna with regard
to Khas Mahal Plot No. 22 and 23 situated
on the Patna-Gaya Road (now known as
Budh Marg) has been accepted and the
Collector has been directed to evict persons
who are in illegal occupation of the said
plots invoking the provisions of the Khas
Mahal policy 2011. Moreover, the said order
passed by the learned Divisional
Commissioner is completely illegal being in
teeth of the judgment dated 18.10.2015
passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.
19325 of 2015 which still holds the field and
whereunder it has been held that the 2011
Khas Mahal policy of the State Government
cannot be made applicable to the pre-
existing lease(s) entered in between the State
and individual persons and such leases
would continue to be governed by the
provisions of the Khas Mahal Manual and
the covenants of the lease;
(ii) for the issuance of a writ of or in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18564 of 2018(7) dt.05-01-2026
3/8
nature of mandamus directing the
respondent authorities to forthwith complete
the necessary formalities for the completion
of settlement of the plot in question with the
petitioner in terms of the decision of the
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in
the Letter dated 14.11.1998 (Annexure P2);
(iii) for issuance of an appropriate
writ/order or direction staying the operation
of the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the
learned Divisional Commissioner, Patna in
Eviction Appeal No. 105 of 2016during the
pendency of the instant Writ Petition;
(iv) for the issuance of any other or further
order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case and
in the interests of justice..
3. The matter relates to Khas Mahal plot nos. 22 and
23 situated at old Patna-Gaya road (now Budh Marg, Patna).
The lease of the said land was executed in the year 1922 with
late Narayan Sah for the period of 50 years and later for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18564 of 2018(7) dt.05-01-2026
4/8
period of 30 years on 29.03.1973 (effective 22.05.1972) with the
family members of Satya Narayan Sahay and Tribhuvan Sahay
and later Tribhuvan Sahay was a childness executed a will in
favour of Satya Narayan Sahay and affirmed under the Probate
Case No. 03 of 1980.
4. So far as the land belonging to Madan Sahay is
concerned, the application for renewal was rejected with a
direction to Collector, Patna to resume the possession which was
done on 22.03.1993. This was challenged in Patna High Court
and status quo was made and ultimately, possession restored to
the aggrieved persons.
5. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the
agreement with one of the lease holder, he entered the premises
and continued on it. Further, pursuant to the changes in the Khas
Mahal Policy brought forward by the State Government, the
petitioner represented before the respondents and pursuant
thereto, the Collector, Patna vide memo no. 278 dated
05.05.1999 having taken note of that he is under tenancy of the
said plot and has made representation before the Revenue
Department directed him to prefer a fresh petition (Annexure-4
to the petition).
6. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately
Patna High Court CWJC No.18564 of 2018(7) dt.05-01-2026
5/8
thereafter, on 11.06.1999, he made a representation before the
Collector, Patna. Tthe case of the petitioner is that no step was
taken by the Collector in the matter and he was under the
impression that the case is pending consideration but in the
meantime, came the order of the Divisional Commissioner,
Patna in Execution Appeal No. 105 of 2016 (State of Bihar vs.
Tribhuvan Sahay & Ors) disposed of on 01.08.2017 by which
taking note of the fact that the lease period has come to an end
in the year 2002 and original lease holders have not made any
fresh representation, in that background, they are not entitled to
continue on the land in question and as such are required to be
evicted (Annexuere-P/9 to the writ petition).
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that though original lease holders failed to make any
representation and rightly showed that it is in possession of the
present petitioner, the fact remains that the respondents took
note of their possession and opened the channel of
communication as recorded above but instead of taking a
decision in the matter, in came the order in question, forcing
him to move before this Court. The submission is that the
Collector should have taken the matter to its logical conclusion
on the petition preferred by him. Further, submission is that if a
Patna High Court CWJC No.18564 of 2018(7) dt.05-01-2026
6/8
fresh lease deed is executed in his favour, not only he is ready
to pay all the amount, he is further ready to clear the arrears
beginning in the year 2002.
8. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the
respondent and the learned State counsel submits that the order
in question was passed against the original lease holders, they
are neither the petitioners nor impleaded as respondents in the
case and as such the petitioner do not have a case. He, however,
concedes that the channel of communication was opened in the
year 1999 (during the period the lease deed was continued),
which came to an end in the year 2002 and there is nothing on
record on the action of the steps taken by the State-respondent.
9. Having taken note of the entire facts, it is evident
from the Annexure-4 that:
(i) originally, the lease was executed with
the family members of Rajendra Sahay,
Ranjeet Sahay and Sanjeev Sahay;
(ii) it is further accepted fact that
subsequently, the petitioner came in part of
the said premises pursuant to agreement
made by one of the lease holder;
(iii) It is again admitted by the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.18564 of 2018(7) dt.05-01-2026
7/8
respondent that a channel of communication
was opened with him;
(iv) he is continuing on the said premises;
(v) the original lease holders have not made
any representation for renewal of lease deed.
10. Further, the learned State counsel has rightly
pointed out that though the order has not been passed against the
petitioner, he came forward and challenged it but failed to
implead three original lease holders/heirs as respondents in this
case. However, taking note of the fact that the Collector wanted
him to reply on whether he is interested in getting the lease
executed or not, he promptly made a representation, it was
natural for the Collector, Patna to take the same to its logical
conclusion.
11. The original communication is of the year
1999, we are in the year 2026. Again, at the cost of the repeat-
ion, it is noted that earlier, till the filing of the writ petition, the
petitioner was continuing on the said part of the premises and
later after order of the coordinate bench on 20.12.2019 when
interim relief was granted to the petitioner, he is present in the
premises till date, in that background, it would be appropriate
that he represents before the Collector, Patna alongwith all the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18564 of 2018(7) dt.05-01-2026
8/8
supporting documents in next four weeks and the Collector,
Patna shall be hearing the parties and taking the matter to its
logical conclusion by a reasoned order.
12. Till the order is passed by the Collector, Patna,
the interim protection granted to the petitioner on 20.12.2019 to
continue.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…