IMPORTANT POINT
The renewal of a lease requires timely applications and continuous possession; failure to meet these criteria results in loss of entitlement, as established in the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for:

(i) the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to show cause as to why not the order dated 21.01.1997 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure 1) as also the order dated 11.12.1980 passed by the respondent no.5 (Annexure-2) be not quashed;

(ii) further writ, order or direction to the respondent no.2 to renew the lease in favour of the petitioners for a further period of 30 years in view of the order dated 30.11.1992 (Annexure-3);

(iii) further restrain the respondent no.6 from taking possession of the disputed house on the basis of the impugned order.

FACTS:

(A) PETITIONER’s VERSION:

2. The petitioner’s grandfather, Bhola Singh got the lease of the Khas Mahal land in the year 1939 for a period of thirty years. As per the terms and condition of the lease, he/family members are/were entitled for its renewal of 30 years from (the period of the first lease). The case of the petitioners is/are that in view of the terms of lease providing two renewals, the order of the Collector in settling the land with the respondent no.6 by way of lease deed is wholly illegal particularly when the original lessee had applied for its renewal in the year 1976 though after expiry of the first term in the year 1969.

3. The details of the land in question for which the lease deeds were made is/are as under:-

“Khata No. 28, Plot No. 1030, (New Khata No. 833, New Plot No. 2825), (Area 15.5 decimal) situated in Ward no.4, Khasmahal Plot No. G-9, Village and Circle-Dumra, Anchal-Dumra, District-Sitamarhi.”

4. The contention of the petitioners is/are that after the settlement of the leased land in the year 1939, Bhola Singh constructed a residential house where their family members are/were residing, a fact also found true by the Circle Officer in his earlier local inspection. In the revisional survey held in the year 1976 also, the petitioners were found in possession over the disputed land. Further, at no point of time, either the petitioners or their father agreed to transfer the lease land to the respondent no.6 (now substituted by her heirs).

5. The case further is that so far as the ancestors of the respondents are concerned, late Rama Prasad Verma was allowed to live in one portion of the house by the petitioners’ grandfather, Bhola Singh because both were friends and late Rama Prasad Verma had no house to live. The petitioners’ grandfather was a simple person and late Rama Prasad Verma committed fraud upon him by taking electric connection in his name as also depositing the Municipality tax, again in his name. The contention is that late Rama Prasad Verma created several forged documents in his name having no relevance for the purpose of lease.

6. The case of the petitioner(s) further is/are that as per the lease deed between the State respondents and Bhola Singh, on the expiry of 30 years lease period, the same was to be renewed. Further, there is also the government resolution issued vide memo no. 575 dated 18.11.1987 that in case of default committed by the lessee, the land can be re-settled after the imposition of some fine.

7. The contention is that on 25.08.1978, the respondent no.5 sent a notice to the petitioners for renewal of the lease although the petitioners had already filed an application dated 12.02.1976 before the L.R.D.C., Sitamarhi for its renewal (Annexure-9). Further, the petitioners are/were in possession of the land on which erroneously, the claim has been laid by the respondent no.6/heirs.

8. Unfortunately, all these facts were overlooked by the Collector, Sitamarhi vide his order dated 04.11.1993 while interfering with the order passed by the A