Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. Navin Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. V.N. Sinha, Government Pleader No. 9 for the State.

2. This question, which has fallen for consideration in this writ application, is as to whether the petitioner, who at one point of time was a lessee from the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas-Mahal) Manual, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Khas-Mahal Manual"), could have been evicted by a summary proceeding without resorting to the provisions of Rule 22 of the Khas-Mahal Manual even after the period of lease had expired long back.

3. The short facts giving rise to this writ application, which emerge from the facts enumerated in the writ application and the counter-affidavit, are as under:

It appears that a piece of land measuring 12x 25 having an area of 300 sq. ft. situate in village Moharrampur under Kotwali Police Station in the District of Patna, being part of Municipal Survey Plot No. 1132, Sheet No. 51, Ward No. 2, Circle No. 9 within the Patna Municipal Corporation was settled in favour of the petitioner on temporary basis vide lease deed dated 10-10-1971 for a period of three years under the provisions of the Khas-Mahal Manual and the same expired on 9-10-1974 and even after expiry of the period of the lease, the same was not renewed by the State authorities and the prayer of the petitioner was rejected for renewal by the State Government vide order as contained in Memo No. 2931 dated 27-5-1975.

4. The petitioner thereafter came to this Court against the order refusing to renew the lease deed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1532 of 1976, which was disposed of on 13-7-1976 and a direction was issued to the effect that in case, the petitioner has not vacated the land of his own accord, then the authorities will proceed to evict him from the land in question only in accordance with law, be it under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter to be referred to as Act) or under any other relevant law.

5. The prayer of the petitioner for renewal was again rejected by th State Government and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. 580 dated 7-3-1991. It further appears that the petitioner even thereafter continued in possession of the land in question. The State authorities thereafter insisted the petitioner for vacation of the land in question and on failure on the part of the petitioner the State authorities demolished the temporary structure raised over the land in question and tried to evict the petitioner some time in the year 1999. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11787 of 1999 against the alleged arbitrary action of the State authorities. The writ application aforesaid, however, was disposed of on 14-1-2000 and the State authorities were directed to proceed in accordance with law.

6. The State authorities thereafter initiated a proceeding under Sec. 3 of the Act and show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18-3-2001 asking him to file a show-cause in the Court. The proceeding, ultimately, as it appears, was concluded ex parte on 23-5-2001 and a final order was passed under Sec. 6 of the Act by the Collector under the Act and a notice, as contained in Annexure-6, was effected on the petitioner to remove the encroachment from" the land in question giving rise to this application.

7. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even though the lease deed was not renewed after its expiry in the year 1974, the entry of the petitioner upon the land in question cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorised and in that view of the matter, the petitioner could not have been sought to be evicted from the land in question in a summary proceeding without resorting to the procedure laid down under Rule 22 of the Khas-Mahal Manual. It is further submitted that the petitioner was only liable to be evicted fro