Saroj Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC 9 for the State.

The petitioner had initially moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“(i) In the nature of certiorari for setting aside the Memo no. X-210/07-2754 dated 9/12/2019 issued under the signature of District

Magistrate, Patna whereby and whereunder the structure situated at Kadamkuan Khas Mahal Block-E, Plot no. 11, admeasuring 4 katha

land has been directed to be consificated and further also to quash the consequential notice dated 16/12/2019 issued on the name of Smt.

Daulati Devi who is mother of the petitioner under the signature of Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna whereby and whereunder a direction

has been made to vacate the premises by 18/12/2019 failing which forceful eviction shall be made.

(ii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.â€​

However, by filing Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2020, amendment is sought to challenge order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Divisional

Commissioner, Patna in Case No. Others-24-2016.

The entire controversy arises with regard to the Khas Mahal Property which was initially settled on perpetual lease in favour of one Shyam

Narayan Lal in the year 1927, who later sold it in favour of Daulti Devi, mother of the petitioner, under two transactions in the year 1965 and 1972. By

order dated 22.02.2008, the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, accepting the proposal of the Collector, Patna cancelled

the lease in favour of Daulti Devi and also took a decision to take possession of the same. The challenge in the present writ application to the

subsequent developments by which notice was given for vacating the premises and also direction was given for forcible take over of possession,

pursuant to the decision of the Commissioner, Patna Division directing for such eviction under the New Khas Mahal Policy, 2011.

The Court would only observe that till the time, the cancellation of the lease in favour of the mother of the petitioner, who at the relevant time was

alive, as she is said to have passed away on 04.08.2008 remains, the authorities cannot be faulted for taking steps for resuming possession.

Learned counsel for the State, at this juncture, informed the Court that the order of cancellation of lease dated 22.02.2008 was assailed by the

petitioner in CWJC No. 1110 of 2009, which stood dismissed for default on 29.08.2013 and till date, the same has not been restored, though an

application for restoring the same is pending consideration in MJC No. 5264 of 2019.

Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court finds that till the time the cancellation order is not interfered with, no relief, as sought for in the present

writ application can be granted to the petitioner. The Court would further observe that the present relief can be treated as consequential to the relief in

the other writ application, but without interference in the order of cancellation of the lease deed in favour of the mother of the petitioner, at the point

when she was alive, the reliefs cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, before the

appropriate forum.

In view of the order passed, Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2020 stands disposed off.