IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.
CWJC No.11929 of 2016
(15.7.2025)
Shri Robert Lakra & Ors. ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Khas Mahal Law – New Khas Mahal Policy, 2011 – Chapter 4 Para 14 – Cancellation of Lease of Khas Mahal land – Undisputedly, the lease deed dated 19.06.1966 was a renewed lease granted for 50 years commencing from 01.04.1966, which recognized the rights of the lessees over 0234 acres of Khas Mahal land – The lease deed contained clear conditions regarding transfer and construction, requiring prior written permission from the Collector – It is also not in dispute, rather admitted that vide letter dated 08.12.1989, permission for sale and construction of multistoried apartment by Midway Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Patna was granted by the competent authority – The subsequent cancellation of lease in 2004 appears to have been founded on the alleged breach of lease conditions – However, the legality of such cancellation must be assessed in light of procedural safeguards, including notice and hearing, as well as existence or otherwise of a formal withdrawal of the 1989 permission – There is no material on record to suggest that the permission granted in 1989 was formally revoked – Moreover, the conduct of the authorities post-1991, including registration of sale deeds, mutation, acceptance of taxes, and lack of timely objection, indicates implied acquiescence – The lease of the Khas Mahal property – In question has been cancelled, and direction for resuming possession of land in question along with the structure present over the same has been passed without following the due process of law i.e., by approaching the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction – Further, the record discloses that neither the original lessees nor the Midway Co-operative Housing nor the petitioners (the flat owners) were issued any notice or provided any opportunity of hearing prior to the issuance of the cancellation order or the subsequent directive – The omission to do so renders the action procedurally unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Present case is also hit by the principles of promissory stoppe as the petitioners have purchased the flats in good faith under government permission and have been paying taxes, maintaining possession without any objection from any authority – Impugned orders cancelling the lease and resuming possession set aside – Respondent authorities restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioners except in accordance with the due process of law – Petitioners given liberty to file appropriate application before the competent Khas Mahal authority for renewal of lease – Writ application allowed. (Paras 10 & 11)
Alok Kumar Sinha, J. – Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the following main relief: –
“(i) To quash the order dated 18 May 2004, as contained in Letter No. 603(6)/Revision (Annexure 13), along with the subsequent Memo No. 2273/Rev., Patna dated 14 September 2004 (Annexure 13-1), on the grounds that there has been no breach of the terms of the lease deed dated 19 June 1966.
(ii) Consequent to the relief sought for in prayer (i), to direct the concerned authorities, including the District Collector, to consider the petitioners’ case – being the recognized successors-in-interest of the original lessee/society – for renewal of the lease in accordance with the rights conferred under Clause 15 of the original lease deed, and to grant such renewal strictly in accordance with law.
(iii) To grant any other relief or pass such further orders as may be deemed just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the petitioner’s case.”
3. The present writ petition has been instituted by a group of flat allottees and members of the Midway Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Patna, seeking to assail the legality and validity of the purported cancellation of a lease dated 19.06.1966 in respect of Khas Mahal land bearing Plot No. 4, Circle No. 6, Tauzi Nos. 862/863, Holding No. 56, measuring 0.234 acres, situated near Dakbungalow Road, Patna. The petitioners further seek issuance of appropriate directions for considering the petitioners' case for renewal of the lease and protection of their right to peaceful possession and enjoyment of their residential flats, constructed pursuant to express governmental permission.
4. The origin of the property in dispute traces back to a lease granted by the Collector, Patna, on behalf of the Government of Bihar in favour of one Ram Chandra Bhaduri on 01.04.1916, which was subsequently transferred with due approval to Smt. Taru Balla Devi in 1932. Following a family settlement in 1956, the southern portion of the land devolved upon Devi Rani Devi and her successors, who were granted a renewed lease for 50 years w.e.f. 01.04.1966, which recognized the previous transfer and family settlement.
Subsequently, the then-lessees, citing financial necessity, sought permission from the competent authority to sell the property to Midway Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited for the purpose of constructing a multistoried residential apartment. Vide Memo No. 2489 dated 08.12.1989, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, granted specific permission to transfer the land to Midway Apartment Cooperative Housing Society for constructing residential apartments thereon, visualizing provisions for sale of individual flats and execution of lease deeds with new allottees upon expiry of the existing lease.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action/order of the respondent authorities contained in letter dated 18.05.2004 (Annexure-13) and consequential order/direction contained in letter dated 14.09.2004 (Annexure- 13(i)) of cancelling the lease and resumption of the property in question along with the structures present over the same, is wholly arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. It is further contended that neither the original lessees nor the petitioner-allottees, who are bona fide purchasers for value, were ever served with any notice or afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the cancellation of the lease or the resumption of possession. The unilateral action taken by the respondents behind the back of the affected parties, despite their recognized possession and occupation spanning over two decades, is violative of Article 14, Article 21, and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
6. It is further argued that the permission granted by the State Government on 08.12.1989, having never been rescinded, withdrawn, or annulled by any speaking order, continued
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.