JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of the parties, all the aforesaid writ petitions have been taken up for hearing together since the same involve same and similar issues as also common question of law and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions have challenged the action of the Collector, Patna, who has issued the impugned letters, whereby and where under the lease deeds of the petitioners have been cancelled and it has been directed to resume possession of the land in question along with the structure present over the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have not only challenged the mode and manner in which the lease of the petitioners have been cancelled but have also submitted that any resumption of the lease hold property can only be through the due process of law i.e. by approaching the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and even if the period of lease has expired or the lease stands cancelled, yet the status of the lease holder would be juridical in nature. It is also submitted that the leases in question being perpetual leases cannot be subject to any interference by the respondent-State. It is further submitted that the leases in question have created a vested legal right in the lease holders to the exclusion of others and the contractual obligations casted on the parties to the lease would bind the parties until the lease is determined by a competent forum. It has also been canvassed that the impugned letters issued by the Collector, Patna cancelling the lease deeds in question as also directing for resumption of possession is bad in law inasmuch as no opportunity has been granted to the leases to rectify the breach, if any, hence on this ground also, the impugned action of the Collector, Patna is bad in law and is fit to be set aside. Some of the learned counsels for the petitioners have also argued that in some cases no notices have been issued by the respondent authorities before cancelling the lease deed, hence the letter issued by the Collector, Patna stands vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on a judgment rendered by this Court, reported in 2021(1) BLJ 5 (Shri Sanjay Singh vs. Patna Municipal Corporation), paragraphs no. 73 to 80 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

"73. The aforesaid provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would show that determination of a lease has to take place as per the provisions contained under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and any resumption of possession of the lease lands can only be done by taking recourse to the due process of law i.e. necessitating an eviction decree and execution thereof, however, there can be no forcible dispossession contrary to the law by assuming powers that the law does not vest in the Corporation in a relationship of lesser or lessee or sub-lessee. Thus, before exercising the right of resumption of possession of a leased land, lease is required to be first determined under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and only thereafter, resumption of possession of a leased land can be done by taking recourse to the due process of law.

74. It is a well settled law that since the lease is a creation of the Transfer of Property Act, the same can only be cancelled and the possession of the plot can be resumed only by invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court by filing a suit and not by an executive order passed either by the Patna Municipal Corporation or by the Empowered Standing Committee, hence, on this ground as well, the impugned orders are fit to be set aside. Reference in this connection be had to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in (1986) 1 SCC 133.

75. It is equally a well-settled law that when a property / plot has been leased by a statutory authority, the Transfer