IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2792 of 2007 PREMNITI PRASAD SINGH, Son of late Singheshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Fort Area, Munger, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Munger. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Home Special Department, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Munger. 3. Khas Mahal Officer, Munger. 4. S.D.O., Munger, District- Munger. 5. S.P. Munger. 6. Mani Devi, wife of Sri Mohan Singh, resident of village-Laskara, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- Munger. . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner: M/s Ashok Kumar Jha, Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocates For the State: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar (Munna) AC to SC8 For the Respondent no.6: Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate. ----------- 7/ 27.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has initially filed this writ application for quashing letter no. 53 dated 27.02.2007 passed by Khas Mahal Officer, Munger directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to remove the alleged encroachment over the land measuring about 6 Kathas bearing Tauzi no. 1333, Khata no. 28, Khesara No. 152 bearing Jamabandi No. 29 in which the petitioner has his house. The petitioner also prays for restraining the respondent authorities from disturbing his peaceful possession over the same and restraining them from demolishing the existing structure during the pendency of Title Suit no. 8 of 1985. The father of the petitioner late Singheshwar Prasad Singh, who was an advocate of Munger was living in the Khaparposh house as a tenant of late Nirpad Mukherjee with whom the Khas Mahal land was settled. The aforesaid Khaparposh house existed on plot no. 152, - 2 - Khata no. 28, Jamabandi no.29 measuring 6 kathas in Tauzi no. 1333. It is further submitted that in the year 1978 the petitioner’s father purchased 3 kathas of land in the aforesaid plot from one Anil Kumar Mukherjee descendents of late Nripad Mukherjee. In the mean time, a private dispute arose between Pran Mohan Singh, Sri Mohan Singh, husband of respondent no.6 and others vis-à-vis father of the petitioner and others leading to filing of a Title Suit no. 8 of 2005. In the aforesaid title suit Pran Mohan Singh and Sri Mohan Singh have prayed for declaration of title over the disputed land. They claimed that the land in question belonged to them. The plaintiffs filed injunction petition, which was rejected. Thereafter a Misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 07 of 1986 was also filed, which too was also rejected on 16.06.1987. However, in the aforesaid appeal, the defendant 1st set, through whom petitioner is claiming, gave an undertaking in writing that they will not make any further construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. In view of the aforesaid submission, the Misc. appeal of the plaintiffs was rejected. The petitioner states that thereafter they had not made any construction. He submits that the report of Pleader Commissioner would testify the submission of petitioner. The State in paragraph 06 of its counter affidavit stated that the Khas Mahal Land in question was leased to late Nirapad Mukherjee and the petitioner purchased the same without prior permission of Collector, Munger. A copy of the lease deed is also annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit. Furthermore, the - 3 - lease with Late Nirapad Mukherjee expired and no steps were taken by his legal heirs for renewal of the same. He submits that any purchase or transfer of Khas Mahal Land, which was leased to an original lessee would be illegal without permission of the Collector. In paragraph 09 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that Title Suit no. 08 of 1985 has been filed not against the State of Bihar, rather it is between the petitioner and others including husband of respondent no.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any resume for taking over possession of a Khas Mahal land could be resorted to only under the provisions mentioned under Rules 21 and 22 thereof. Rule 21 states that resumption of a leased land could be made only for public purpose. As per Rule 22, the possession thereof during the pendency of the lease, can be taken through Civil court only, if the lessee objects. It would be relevant to state that aforesaid rules would apply in case of a tenant, who holds the land from Government under a lease, which is not the case here. The aforesaid provision would not apply to a person, who has not been settled land by the government. The petitioner submits that he has filed an application before the Collector, Munger for transfer of the lease / sale of land in his favour. It is also submitted that the aforesaid application is still pending. In the backdrop of the aforesaid provisions, the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to pursue his - 4 - application for lease or transfer of his land before Collector, Munger. No positive direction can be issued in this writ application. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)