IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.26 of 2008 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 5. The District Education Officer, Begusarai 6. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger 7. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Begusarai 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Begusarai 9. The Block Development Officer, Begusarai Sadar, Begusarai 10. The Block Education Officer, Begusarai 11. The Headmaster, Savitri Uchch Vidyalaya, Ulao, District, Begusarai 12. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai 13. The Officer-in-Charge, Begusarai Muffasil P.S., District- Begusarai 14. The Officer-in-charge, Singhoul Police out Post, under Begusarai Muffasil Police Station, District :- Begusarai .. Respondents/Appellants Versus Bharat Bhushan Deva, son of Late Babu Bibhuti Bhushan Deva, resident of village & P.O. Ulao, P.S.: Muffasil, District-Begusarai .. Petitioner .. Respondent ----------- 9 19.05.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.11955 of 2007. The main grievance of the respondent- writ petitioner is with regard to take over the building of the school and the appellant’s action in demolishing the building which is situated on the private land of the respondent. The contention raised by the appellant 2 before the learned Single Judge was that the building was leased out by a registered lease deed dated 03.05.1954 for fifteen years for running the school, but it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that no such valid document was produced before him. We had also occasion to go through the entire judgment and the order of learned Single Judge. Even though similar contention was sought to be raised by learned Government Pleader. But however it has to sustain that the Government has got power to take over private building which are situated on the private land. However no provision is shown before us to the effect that the power is vested with the Government to take over the private buildings which are situated on the private lands. The question with regard to take over of the school under the Act of 1981 is not disputed. However, the fact remains as to whether the government has got power to take over the private buildings situated on the private land. In absence of any such valid documentary evidence to show that such land or building is gifted to the Government, we are of the opinion that the 3 appellants have no power to take over the building which is situated on the private land, in absence of any agreement between the parties. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has fairly submitted that a barren land is gifted for the purpose of school and they have no objection if the appellants construct independent building of their own on the gifted land. Under the above circumstances, taking note of the submission raised, by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that as the appellants could not produced any valid document leasing out private land along with school building to the appellants, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed with the modification in the order of the learned Single judge to the extent that the cost awarded to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- is deleted. Accordingly, the observation of the learned Single judge upholding cost of Rs.1,00,000/- is set aside. 4 With the above modification, in the order of the learned Single Judge, the appeal stands dismissed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)