IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8914 of 2006 1. DR.SUNIL SHARAN, S/O- LATE RAJENDRA KISHORE SHARAN. 2. DR. ANIL SHARAN, S/O- LATE RAJENDRA KISHORE SHARAN. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MOHALLA- KADAMKUAN, M.P. SINHA ROAD, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA THROUGH THEIRS AUTHORISED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI GANESH KUMAR KHETRIWAL, S/O- LATE BHURANMAL KHETRIWAL, RESIDENT OF M.P. SINHA ROAD, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. SRI GANESH KUMAR KHETRIWAL, S/O- LATE BHURANMAL KHETRIWAL, RESIDENT OF M.P. SINHA ROAD, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA :-----PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS. 3. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (REVENUE), PATNA. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, PATNA SADAR, PATNA :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners : M/S Abhay Kumar & Krishna Kishore Sinha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. A.A.G.-3. ====== 2. 17.05.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners are the sons of the lessee of Khas Mahal Land bearing Plot No. 50 ‘C’ in the Kadamkuan area of Patna town. They have filed this writ petition questioning the order of Collector, Patna dated 17.03.2006, Annexure-4, whereunder lease of the aforesaid plot granted in favour of their father has been cancelled in the light of the order of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department of the State Government bearing Letter No. 204 (6) R dated 10.02.2006. Close perusal of the aforesaid order 2 dated 17.03.2006 indicate that the lease of the aforesaid land has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioners have violated the conditions of lease. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the copy of the Government order dated 10.02.2006 referred to in the impugned order was neither served on the petitioner nor they were ever heard with regard to the allegation of violating the terms of the lease by the State Government. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Collector, Patna also did not hear the petitioners ever before passing the order dated 17.03.2006. He also did not issue notice to the petitioners as to why their lease with respect to Plot No. 50 ‘C’ be not cancelled in the light of the orders of the State Government dated 10.2.2006. 3. Counsel for the Respondent-State, however, submits with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit that lease of the petitioners for Plot No. 50 ‘C’ has been cancelled as petitioners changed the user of the lease hold land by letting out the premises raised over the land for commercial purpose and they failed to pay 50 per cent of the commercial rent which they earned from the premises raised over the land to the State 3 Government. In this connection he has also referred to the show-cause reply filed by Petitioner No. 1 dated 06.05.1998, Annexure-3 which is addressed to the Collector, Patna in which it is admitted that the part of the premises was let out to M/s Shalimar Paints for a limited period for residence-cum- godown. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the State it is quite evident from the impugned order dated 17.3.2006, Annexure-4 itself that petitioners were not issued any notice by either the State Government or the Collector, Patna that they have violated the terms of the lease and without issue of notice the lease granted to the father of the petitioners has been cancelled violating different Clause of the Khas Mahal Manual which provides for granting the lessee opportunity of being heard before cancelling the lease. 5. In view of my finding above, I set aside the order dated 17.03.2006, Annexure-4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)