IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14005 of 2002 1. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN CHAND. 2. GAYATRI DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI CHANDRADEO NARAYAN AGRAWAL. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHATTA, POLICE STATION- K.HAT, DISTRICT- PURNEA :--- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PURNEA 4. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, PURNEA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, PURNEA :--- RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.11713 of 1999 1. RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN CHAND. 2. GAYATRI DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI CHANDRADEO NARAYAN AGRAWAL. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHATTA, POLICE STATION- K.HAT, DISTRICT- PURNEA :--- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, PURNEA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, PURNEA :-- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 21. 03.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State of Bihar and the Collector, Purnea who is present in Court at my request to assist in disposal of the two writ cases. 2. Petitioners or their ancestors were granted lease of the Khas Mahal land by Khas Mahal authorities of Purnea district. They have filed the two writ application questioning the order dated 5.2.1999 passed by the Collector, Purnea in Misc. Revision Case No. 141 of 1997, Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C.No. 11713 of 1999, whereunder they have been directed to obtain renewal of the lease, failing which they will be thrown out from the property in-question. In C.W.J.C.No. 14005 of 2002 petitioners have assailed the notice dated 29.7.2002, Annexure-7, whereunder they have been called upon to obtain renewal of lease failing which the property in-question will be leased out in favour of other persons. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the - 2 - finding recorded under order dated 5.2.1999 and notice dated 29.7.2002 that the lands in-question is Khas Mahal land is erroneous in view of the contents of the sale-deed dated 29.6.1907, 12.11.1907 and 11.1.1910 and the assumption of the authorities that the petitioners are the lessee of the lands in-question is also erroneous in view of the contents of the sale-deed wherefrom it would appear that petitioners and their ancestors were the raiyat of the lands in-question. Aforesaid submission is opposed by the learned State counsel Sri K.P.Gupta, S.C.-V and the learned Collector on the basis of the entries made in the Khas Mahal register and the mutation made by the Khas Mahal Officer of the Collectorate and not by the Circle Officer. 4. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot decide the status of the petitioners vis-à-vis the lands in-question as their title is disputed by the authorities on the basis of the entries made in the Khas Mahal register. This Court in the writ jurisdiction has to proceed on the basis of the admitted position which is evident from the impugned order dated 5.2.1999 and the contents of the notice dated 29.7.2002, wherefrom it is evident that petitioners or their ancestors are the lessee of the Khas Mahal land and the authorities require them to obtain renewal of the lease failing which the petitioners would be evicted from the lands in-question and the lands would be leased out in favour of others. 5. As the petitioners have not chosen to comply the instructions contained in order dated 5.2.1999 and notice dated 29.7.2002 it is open for the Collector to evict the petitioners from the lands in-question in accordance with law for their failure to comply the directions contained in the impugned order and the notice. It may, however, be clarified here that law in regard to the lease-hold property is contained in Chapter- V of the Transfer of Property Act which inter - 3 - alia enjoin upon the lessor to evict the lessee by resorting to the processes of Civil Court. For ready reference the learned Collector may look into the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh etc., reported in A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 997 paragraph 15. In view of the provisions of law as set out in Chapter-V of the Transfer of Property Act and the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I dispose of the two writ application directing the State of Bihar and the Collector, Purnea to evict the petitioners from the lands in-question in accordance with law by resorting to the process of the Civil Court and to that extent the contents of the order dated 5.2.1999 and the notice dated 29.7.2002, Annexure-4 and 7 is modified. Learned Collector, present in Court, expressed apprehension that before the authorities could move the Civil Court, the petitioners are likely to transfer/sell the lands in-question. Accordingly, petitioners are restrained from transferring/selling the lands in- question for three months during which time State may file suit in the competent court of civil jurisdiction and obtain the interim orders restraining the petitioners from selling the lands in-question during the pendency of the suit. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)