High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 07 PAT CK 0039

The State of Bihar vs Khas Mahal Citizen Welfare Society

Patna High Court · Decided on 19 July 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Menon, Anil Kumar Upadhyay
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
979 of 2016

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

32 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

Seeking exception to an order dated 08.10.2015 passed

by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19325 of 2013, this appeal

has been filed by the State Government and the issue in question

involved pertains to lease granted to the respondent Society and and

its members (lessee) and certain action said to have been taken by the

Society in pursuance to the lease granted.

2.

Taking shelter of a policy which came into force in

the year 2011, namely, the Bihar Khas Mahal Policy, 2011, action

was proposed to be taken against the Society and the Society and its

members (lessee) approached this Court in the writ petition and in the

writ petition it was found that the policy of 2011 will have

prospective effect, will not apply and cannot be made applicable to

any act of the Society and its members prior to coming into force of

the policy and further holding that if any act has been undertaken

contrary to the lease deed prior to forming of the policy, the State had

right to proceed in the matter of cancellation of the lease deed in

terms of the lease deed and to get the lease deed cancelled in

accordance with law or to take recourse to the remedy of filing a suit

for getting the transaction declared as null and void i.e. which took

place prior to coming into force of the policy in question. Prima facie

holding that the policy in question which came in the year 2011

cannot be used against the acts of the Society and its members which

took place prior to coming into force of the policy, the writ petition

has been allowed and liberty has been granted to the State

Government to proceed in accordance with law for violation of the

lease deed granted. In fact by the policy in question the State

Government is trying to change the conditions of the lease, which

according to learned Writ Court was not permissible.

3.

In the circumstances, we are of the considered view

that the Writ Court has not committed any error warranting

consideration.

4.

The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.