The State cannot forcibly dispossess a lessee without taking recourse to law.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 30-3-1982 and 21-6-1982 passed by the Collector of East Champaran in Revision miscellaneous No.109 of 1981-82 as contained in Annexure 1 and 2 respectively and also for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to remove the lock illegally put on the door of the petitioners shop and to put the petitioner in possession thereof as the petition purported to have been dispossessed under the order of Collector by an order dated 5-18-1974 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.124 of 1973 as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

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

3. The petitioner took settlement of a piece of land measuring 10 X 9 out of survey plot No.2224 situate in Motihari town from Bettiah Raj in 1949. The petitioner after taking settlement of the land aforementioned constructed a shop thereupon. According to the petitioner in respect of the land in question a sum of Rs.4 was fixed by way of rent per month.

4. The petitioner had been carrying on grocery business in the said shop ; but some time in the year 1954, the petitioner let out the same to one Abdul sattar for a terms of five years on a mothly rental of Rs.8.50 paise by virtue of an unegistered Kiaryanama. The petitioner has asserted that as the said Abdul sattar defaulted in payment of rent since January, 1958 and as the petitioner allegedly was also in need of the said shop premises reasonably and in good faith for his own use and occupation ; he after serving a notice upon the said Abdul sattar filed a suit for his eviction.

5. According to the petitioner said Abdul Sattar upon receipt of the notice filed a petition before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Motihari for getting his name mutated in respect of the premises in question, which was rejected by an order dated 9-8-1958. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the said Abdul Sattar before the collector, Champaran, which was registered as a Appeal No.7 of 1958-59, which was also dismissed by an order dated 4-2-1959. The said order is contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Collector in his aforementioned order observed as follows :-

"i therefore find that Abdul Sattar has acquired only the right of an under tenant at best and cannot apply for mutation in the records maintainend by the Anchaladhikari. it is rather curious that Abdul sattar while admitting the fact of having paid rent to Kailash Sah and regularly, wants to elbow him out complety by such a petition formulating his name. His intentions do not appear to be genuine. "

6. The petitioner instituted a suit for eviction against Shri Abdul Sattar, which was registered as Title Suit No.122 of 1959. The said suit was decreed. The said Abdul Sattar challenged the aforementioned decree even up to this court, in Second Appeal No.290 of 1973, which was also dismissed by a judgment dated 2-19-1280. The said Abdul Sattar again filed an application for mutation on 9-6-1966 and by an order dated 10-9-1966 the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector directed mutation of Abdul Sattar name in respect of the holdings in question. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order before additional Collector, which was dismissed on 13-8-1966. The petitioner, there after filed a revision application before Divisional Commissioner at Muzaffarpur, which was registered as Case No.39 7/miscellaneous/1966-67 wherein by an order dated 26-6-1971 the said Commissioner allowed the revision application and set aside the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Additional Collector dated 1-9-1966 and 13-12-1966 and 13-12-1966 respectively.

7. The said Abdul Sattar thereafter again filed a fresh application for settlement of the shop but the same was also rejected by the Collector by his order dated 5-11-1974 and a lock which had been put by the Anchal Adhikari at the instigation of said Abdul Sattar wa