S.B.Sinha, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioners challenge the various orders as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application and pray that they be put back in possession in respect of the building situated in the town of Hazaribagh, commonly known as Valley View where from she was forcibly dispossessed.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The ancestors of the petitioners took lease in respect of various plots of land being plot No. 1653, 1654, 1655, 1657, 1658 and 1661 measuring an area of Order 94 decimal situated in village Hurhuru in the district of Hazaribagh from the Khas Mahal authority.

4. The said lease was granted in the year 1945 initially for a period of three years and thereafter the original leases, Debendra Nath Dutta with the sanction of the State Government constructed a house thereon, which is a double storeyed building in the year 1945-46. It is admitted that Sri Debendra Nath Dutta and his family hail from Calcutta and as such they constructed the aforementioned house for the purpose of using the same during holidays. It is further stated that the aforementioned building was commonly known as Valley View. The petitioner further stated that the aforementioned lease was renewed for a period of 30 years pursuant to an application for renewal filed by the said Sri Debendra Nath Dutta.

5. It is further stated in the writ petition that pursuant to Clause 14 of the terms and conditions of the lease as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application, the heirs of late Debendra Nath Dutta made an application for renewal of the aformentioned deed of lease on or before 28th December, 1977 for a further period of thirty years.

6. It may be mentioned here that the heirs of aforementioned Sri Debendra Nath Dutta also got their names mutated in the office of the State of Bihar which took place in the year 1974. The petitioners categorically stated in paragraph 24 of the writ application that the aforementioned application for renewal of the lease has not yet been disposed of by the concerned authorities, The petitioner has further alleged mala fide on the part of the authorities concerned.

7. From a perusal of the various orders impugned in this petition as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application, it appears that the same depicts a sordid state of affairs. From the order dated 18-9-1980 it appears that the Khas Mahal Officer recommended that the application for renewal of the lease be rejected and the matter was ordered to be put up before the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority to reject the application for renewal of the said lease and thereafter, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner directed to issue a notice upon the lessee to show cause as to why the lease shall not be cancelled. This order of Deputy Commissioner is dated 19-9-1980. However, by the order of the same date it appears that one N. S. Madhawan directed that four Home Guards be deputed for the purpose of occupying the building and further directed the Sub-divisional Officer to depute a Magistrate for that purpose. In the said order it was further mentioned that S. P. Hazaribagh may also be requested to send a Hawaldar for the purpose of being the incharge of the force. By the said order it was also directed that the Nazarat would check up and seal all the rooms.

8. From the order sheet dated 3-10-1980, it appears that the Khas Mahal Officer in a note placed before the Additional Collector reported that all the rooms of the building in question have been locked up and the Home Guards had also been deputed for the purpose of looking after the same. It appears that the aforementioned order for resumption of the building was recalled by an order dated 7-10-1980, Thereafter, an application for review was filed for the purpose of recalling the aforementioned order of taking possession of the building in question. The said application was ultimately taken up for hearing by the Deputy Commissioner