IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1175 of 2010 IN CWJC No. 4682 of 2009 ============================================ THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Versus BANWARI LAL BHIMSARIYA ============================================ Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Krishna Chnadra, Advocate Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate ============================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 07. 29.11.2010 This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 18th March 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 4682 of 2009. Under the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant State of Bihar to vacate the disputed property utilized for residence of Sub-Divisional Officer, Khagaria. The respondent no. 1-writ petitioner filed above C.W.J.C. No. 4682 of 2009 for recovery of possession of the disputed property. According to the petitioner, he was the owner of the property and that the appellant-State of Bihar was the tenant. The petition was contested, inter alia, on the ground that if the appellant-State were the tenant the writ petition for recovery of possession was not maintainable. The remedy lay 2 under the Rent Act. One Sanjeev Kumar Tulsyan, appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 988 of 2010, intervened in the writ petition. According to the said intervener, he wanted to assist the court, and that the Court should not accept the title claimed by the writ petitioner. The learned single judge rejected the intervention as misconceived. The learned Single Judge upheld the claim of the petitioner and directed the appellant-State of Bihar to ensure that within a reasonable time the premises in question should be vacated and that the State handed over the property to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge also clarified that nothing stated in the judgment would confer exclusive title on the petitioner against the other co-sharers. After couple of hearings before this Court, one Sri Sushil Kumar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Khagaria has filed supplementary affidavit. As per the statements made in the supplementary affidavit, the State shall, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, vacate the disputed property within one year. It is further stated that the appellant-State does not accept the title of the respondent no. 1 nor does it accept that it is a tenant in the disputed property. In view of the aforesaid statements made in the supplementary affidavit, without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised by the appellant-State Government, We direct 3 that the appellant-State Government will vacate the disputed property on or before 31st December 2011. Until the State Government hands over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the petitioner, the State Government will deposit occupancy fee of Rs. 5,000/- every month with the House Controller, Khagaria. Such deposit will be made by 10th day of every month, commencing from January, 2011. The amount of occupancy fee deposited by the appellant-State Government will be remitted to the petitioner within 15 days of the deposit. The above order is not intended to confer title upon the petitioner or does not accept the exclusive right of the petitioner to the disputed property or the amount of occupancy fee. If a third party has a claim to the title to the disputed property or any part of it or to receive the amount of occupancy fee or any part of it; such claim may be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. Subject to the above direction, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. It is clarified that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge will not be treated as a precedent in similar matters. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)