IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13200 of 2005 1.Wasim Ahmad ,S/O Late Dular Ahmad,R/O Ward No.15, Sitamrhi Town Opp.S.R.K.Goenka College,P.S.District-Sitamarhi. 2.Kranti Kr.Singh @ Munnu Singh,S/O Late Laxman Singh,R/O Village-Punaura,P.S.Sitamarhi Sadar District-Sitamarhi. ………. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Sitmamarhi. 3. Deputy Cllector Incharge Khas Mahal, Sitmarhi. ………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 31.08. 2005 by which the respondent no.3 has directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 3, 03, 435.00 and Rs 264761.00 respectively as arrears of rent and Municipal Tax. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land on which shops are built, are admittedly the Khas Mahal land and subsequently the petitioners were inducted as tenant. Near the premises of Goenka college, there is Khas Mahal land which was earlier leased out by the respondent State to Goenka College, Sitamarhi. However, on violation of certain terms and conditions of the lease by the College authority, a decision was taken by the Khas Mahal Committee to settle the land in favour of the shopkeepers, who were doing their business from before and possessing the shops. Thereafter the rent was fixed by the said Committee and the petitioners started paying monthly rent and they also paid some money as ‘salami’ as per decision taken by the Committee. 2 Accordingly, each year the rent was being paid by the petitioners till 2001 in pursuance of the demand notice issued by the Deputy Collector (Incharge) Khas Mahal (respondent No.3). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such demand notice was ever served upon them after the year 2001 and when they went to deposit the amount suo motu , they were not allowed to do so. On the representation submitted by the petitioners before the concerned authority, the matter was referred to the Committee to decide the settlement of Khas Mahal Land under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Sitamarhi, who recommended for the lease agreement to be approved by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. Thereafter the matter remained pending and it appears that ultimately in the year 2005, the file took a fresh turn in as much as in reference to the objections raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General and recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and also some order passed in CWJC No. 1089 of 2001 and MJC No. 3719 of 1998, the rents have been fixed and the impugned notice has been issued. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi justifying the notice on the ground that the rents were not fixed properly for various reasons including the objection raised by Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Public Accounts Committee of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and accordingly, such notices were issued. Considering the rival contentions and after going through the records, this Court is of the opinion that once petitioners 3 had discharged their liability by paying the ‘salami’ as well the rent as per the terms and conditions indicated to them and had consistently maintained the same, the respondents suddenly in the year 2005 i.e. after twenty years cannot depart from their own stand and cannot put such liability on the petitioners. It is worthwhile to note that from perusal of the orders of the two cases of which there is reference in the notice it is clear that the same have absolutely no relevance in the present case. On a query by the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why the petitioners had not paid rent of the year, 2001, it is categorically stated and also pointed out from the counter affidavit filed by the authority concerned, that as per the practice there was notice issued for such payment but when the same was not done they approached the authority to make such payment as and when the same became due. The Court does not find that they are not making the payment deliberately. Learned counsel submits that they are ready to make payment and they do not want to contest the same. With regard to the other point in the demand notice regarding making payment of Municipal dues, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that as per the objection raised by the Municipal Authority that are not being paid, the same as legally due shall be paid by the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court holds that the petitioners are only liable to pay the earlier fixed rent until fixation of fresh rent in accordance with law is done. The respondents shall 4 calculate the arrear dues against the petitioners and shall serve the same within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order upon respondent No. 3. The petitioners shall clear the dues within two months thereafter. The petitioners shall also pay the Municipal dues within two months from today. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)