IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12477 of 2011 Gupteshwar Singh & Anr Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 2 29.8.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel. The petitioner Association namely Deed Writers Association, Aurangabad has been duly registered vide registration no.406 of 1980-81. The Secretary of the Association made an application before the District & Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate, Aurangabad for a piece of land on which they can construct a hall in the premises of the Civil Courts, Aurangabad and after due concurrence of the District & Sessions Judge, the District Magistrate allotted a piece of land for construction of a hall on 1.2.1974 for the use of the Deed writers. A copy of the permission dated 1.2.1974 is at Annexure-2. Thereafter, the Registrar, Civil Courts, Gaya wrote a letter to the Juddge-in-Charge, Civil Courts, Aurangabad communicating the decision of the District Judge according necessary approval for construction of a Hall for the Deed Writers’ Association in the premises of the Civil Courts Compound, Aurangabad. The petitioners raise a grievance that by letter no.292/2011 dated 7.7.2011 issued by the Additional Judge Ist cum Secretary, District Judicial Service Tribunal, Aurangabad they have been directed to vacate the premises occupied by them for establishing Mediation Centre, Aurangabad. The petitioners submit that they are peacefully working in the aforesaid Hall since 2 last 23 years without any complaint and if they are made to vacate the premises, they would not have any other alternative place where they can sit and perform their work. The petitioners further submit that there is enough alternative sites in the Civil Courts premises where a Mediation Centre can be established. However, no opportunity of show cause has been given to them. The petitioners submit that in case the respondents decide to take over the premises for opening of a Mediation Centre then in that case they may not be disturbed till an alternative site in the Civil Courts premises is allotted to them for construction of a hall. Mr. Rajiv Roy, learned G.P.3 submits that the petitioners cannot have indivisible right over the premises merely because they were allowed to construct a hall on a piece of land for their use since long. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the State, it would appear that the respondents had earlier granted permission to construct a hall/shed on a piece of land in the Civil Courts premises on 1.2.1974. The aforesaid permission was granted with a rider that the Association would not have any right over the same and the government can take it back without any condition. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to quash the impugned letter dated 7.7.2011 contained in letter no.292/2011 issued by Respondent no.3. However, it would be open for the petitioners to file a representation before the District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for allotment of an alternative site for 3 construction of a hall/shed for their use. In case such a representation is filed within two weeks from today, the learned District & Sessions Judge would consider the desirability of providing an alternative site to the Deed Writers’ Association. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. KHAN (S.P.Singh,J)