IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14018 of 2009 DHANPAT SAH S/O Late Shivdhari Sah Vill.+P.O.- Rajepur, P.S.- Rajepur, Distt.- East Champaran ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General Of Police Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate East Champaran, Motihari 4. The Superintendent Of Police East Champaran, Motihari 5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chakia, East Champaran, Motihari 6. The Officer Incharge Rajepur, P.S.- Rajepur, Distt.- East Champaran …….Respondents. ----------- 02. 05.11.2009 By the present writ application petitioner has sought for several reliefs to restrict the same for a direction to be issued to the Respondent State to ensure payment of compensation by way of rent in respect of his premises which have been occupied by the State. The facts did not seem to be in dispute. On 21.08.1976 petitioner had purchased the disputed land from one Sri Ram Bilas Choudhary by registered sale deed. As he is not a permanent resident of village Rajepur in the District of East Champaran, he came to know that as there being no premises available to establish a police station, police forcibly occupied the premises and established a Thana. Petitioner having failed to get the premises vacated filed Title Suit No. 11 of 1989 in the Court of Munsif, Sikarahna, Motihari for declaration of his title and - 2 - restoration of his possession. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 31.01.2003. The Respondent Officer-In-Charge not having vacated the premises, the decree was put in execution and on 29.01.2006 the land with the premises was delivered to the petitioner. It is stated that as there were no other alternative accommodation available, the Officer-In-Charge requested the petitioner not to disturb him and assured that he would take all steps necessary to get the rent fixed, paid for past and future occupation till they can find their premises. In view of this genuine difficulty petitioner accepted continuance of the Thana in the premises in question. He thereafter filed petition before the Sub- Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Chakia for fixation of rent and payment thereof but nothing has been done. His prayer thus is that the occupation of the Officer-In- Charge not being permissive rather forceful and prior to delivery of possession State must compensate him. Secondly for the period after delivery of possession again State must compensate for as State can not continue to occupy the premises of petitioner without payment of fair rent. In my view, the prayer is neither illegal nor without any basis. Instead of prolonging litigations undoubtedly the premises is being occupied by the State - 3 - for running a police station. It can not be debated or doubted that the petitioner has premises and he is entitled for compensation. I therefore, direct the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Chakia to determine the past period of occupancy by the State of the said premises and to determine the rent that would be fairly payable in that regard. It should then determine what would be the present fair rent. On such determination, after due enquiry he shall intimate the same to the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran who would then ensure that the payments are made to the petitioner accordingly till alternative premises are found by the police for establishing the police station on government land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chakia would notice the Officer-In-Charge of Rajepur police station in the matter as well to conclude the proceedings within three months from the date of production of a copy of the order of this Court. The final order as indicated above which would be passed would then be communicated to the Respondent Superintendent of Police, East Champaran who would then ensure that within next three months the petitioner is paid his due amount as determined for past and present occupation. In case the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran does not intend to let the Thana continue in the same premises then he should order and - 4 - ensure vacation of petitioner’s premises immediately upon such a decision being taken but not without payment of compensation as indicated above for past occupation. Let it be recorded that I have not determine the facts finally which would have to be determined by the Rent Controller in the enquiry to be conducted by him in this regards. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)