Patna High Court
Sulochana MandalversusThe State of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, the confiscation order stands, and the petitioner may seek compensation only if that order is set aside, while the respondents may take possession for road widening.
Summary
The petitioner, Sulochana Mandal, leased land from the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation (BMC) to operate Rimjhim Hotel. When the lease was not renewed, the BMC ordered her to vacate the premises for road‑widening under a public‑interest scheme, and an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the Excise Department raided the hotel, seized foreign liquor and the hotel was confiscated under Section 61 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. No appeal against the confiscation order was known to have been filed. The court held that the confiscation remains in force, dismissed the writ petition, but allowed the petitioner to claim damages if the confiscation order is later set aside, and permitted the respondents to take possession for the road‑widening project.
Issues considered
- The BMC’s authority to evict a lessee without renewal of lease in the interest of road widening.
- The effect of a confiscation order under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act on the lessee’s right to retain possession.
- Whether the writ petition can be entertained when the confiscation order has not been appealed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- lease
- municipal corporation
- road widening
- public interest
- confiscation
- excise law
- writ of possession
- compensation
- due process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4154 of 2019
======================================================
Sulochana Mandal W/o Late Raghunandan Mandal Res. of Pathargama, P.S.
Pathargama, Distt.- Godda (Jharkhand), presently residing at Tilkamanjhi,
P.S.- Tilkamanjhi, Distt.- Bhagalpur ( Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar and Ors Through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Minicipal Commissioner Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, Bhagalpur.
3. The District Magistrate Bhagalpur.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer Sadar, Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
: Mr. Saurabh Raj, Adv.
: Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kinkar Kumar (Sc9)
: Ms. Sushmita Sharma, Ac to Sc9
For the BMC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
16 24-04-2026 1. The present writ application has been filed for a
direction to the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from
her hotel in the name and style of Rimjhim Hotel, Bhagalpur,
and to quash the Letter No. 659 dated 23.02.2019 by which the
petitioner has been asked to vacate the hotel premises by
02.03.2019 else she would be forcefully evicted.
2. The brief facts of the case is Bhagalpur Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “BMC”) entered into
a lease agreement with the petitioner for a piece of land which
was extended in the year 2000 for three years and thereafter it
has not been renewed. On 02.08.2018, the SDO requested the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4154 of 2019(16) dt.24-04-2026
2/5
BMC for removal of encroachment on the road Crossing
through Tilkamanjhi Chauraha as it was causing traffic jam.
Permanent Standing Committee of the BMC took a decision for
widening of the road after removal of shops of the BMC on
13.08.2018. Mayor wrote to the Commissoiner for removal of
shops on 26.10.2018 for widening of roads under Smart City
Programme in view of decision of Permanent Standing
Committee. The notice, accordingly, was issued to the
shopkeepers on 24.11.2018 and the petitioner submitted her
reply. In the meeting held between the shopkeepers and the
BMC on 26.11.2018, it was decided that the lease of the
petitioner would not be renewed. Accordingly, on 23.02.2019,
notice was issued for vacating the shop. On 04.03.2019, the
Commissioner of the BMC informed the petitioner to place his
case before him and in response thereto the petitioner appeared.
On 06.03.2019, Commissioner passed an order to vacate the
premises in public interest for widening of road and the order
was communicated to the petitioner on 07.03.2019.
3. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, argued that the petitioner was a lessee of BMC and
her entry in the leased premises was not illegal. The lease was of
the land upon which the petitioner has constructed the hotel
Patna High Court CWJC No.4154 of 2019(16) dt.24-04-2026
3/5
involving huge amount. The decision not to renew the lease
does not entitle the BMC to vacate the leased premises without
following the due process of law.
4. Referring to page 69 of the writ application i.e.,
R/9, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Municipal
Commissioner vide his letter dated 07.03.2019 has informed the
petitioner that a sum of Rs. 685 per month would be paid to the
petitioner from the date of construction of the hotel till the
petitioner vacates the leased premises. An interim order was
granted by this court on 07.03.2019 staying the Letter No. 659
dated 23.02.2019 issued by Municipal Corporation. Since then,
the property in question is in possession of the petitioner.
5. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel for the
BMC, argued that hotel is in the middle of tri-junction of the
main town causing continuous traffic jam. In view of the fact
that road widening was necessary in public interest, a meeting
was held by the BMC along with the leaseholders, including the
petitioner, for vacating the hotel premises for the purpose of
road widening and the BMC also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 685
per month from the date of construction of the hotel till the date
it is vacated. However, in the meanwhile, a further development
has taken place and Excise Department on 13.10.2020, raided
Patna High Court CWJC No.4154 of 2019(16) dt.24-04-2026
4/5
the hotel premises of the petitioner and recovered foreign liquor
from the hotel. FIR was lodged and the hotel was sealed.
6. C.W.J.C. No. 6997 of 2021 was filed by the
petitioner and the same was disposed with a direction to the
authorities to take action at the earliest in accordance with law.
A Misc. Excise Case No. 284/2020-21 was initiated for
confiscation of the hotel premises and finally it was disposed on
28.08.2021 by which hotel in question was confiscated. After
the date of confiscation, the entire property vests in the State as
per Section 61 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
7. No appeal in the knowledge of the respondent has
been filed by the petitioner against the order of confiscation
dated 18.08.2021 passed by the District Magistrate.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that since petitioner is a lady, she is not aware as to whether the
appeal has been filed against the order of confiscation passed by
the District Magistrate or not.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the fact that, admittedly, the hotel
premises has been confiscated under the statute and the order of
confiscation has not been altered or set aside by any appellate
authority, accordingly, this writ application is disposed with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4154 of 2019(16) dt.24-04-2026
5/5
liberty to the petitioner to claim damages/compensation in case
the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate is set
aside by the appropriate authority. The respondent shall be at
liberty to take possession of the premises for the purpose of road
widening.
10. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, the
present writ application is disposed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U T
Checking your session…