PATNA, India, March 4 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Jan. 2:

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for:

(i) the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to show cause as to why not the order dated 21.01.1997 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure 1) as also the order dated 11.12.1980 passed by the respondent no.5 (Annexure-2) be not quashed;

(ii) further writ, order or direction to the respondent no.2 to renew the lease in favour of the petitioners for a further period of 30 years in view of the order dated 30.11.1992 (Annexure-3);

(iii) further restrain the respondent no.6 from taking possession of the disputed house on the basis of the impugned order. F

ACTS: (A) PETITIONER's VERSION:

2. The petitioner's grandfather, Bhola Singh got the lease of the Khas Mahal land in the year 1939 for a period of thirty years. As per the terms and condition of the lease, he/family members are/were entitled for its renewal of 30 years from (the period of the first lease). The case of the petitioners is/are that in view of the terms of lease providing two renewals, the order of the Collector in settling the land with the respondent no.6 by way of lease deed is wholly illegal particularly when the original lessee had applied for its renewal in the year 1976 though after expiry of the first term in the year 1969.

3. The details of the land in question for which the lease deeds were made is/are as under:-

"Khata No. 28, Plot No. 1030, (New Khata No. 833, New Plot No. 2825), (Area 15.5 decimal) situated in Ward no.4, Khasmahal Plot No. G-9, Village and Circle-Dumra, Anchal-Dumra, District-Sitamarhi."

4. The contention of the petitioners is/are that after the settlement of the leased land in the year 1939, Bhola Singh constructed a residential house where their family members are/were residing, a fact also found true by the Circle Officer in his earlier local inspection. In the revisional survey held in the year 1976 also, the petitioners were found in possession over the disputed land. Further, at no point of time, either the petitioners or their father agreed to transfer the lease land to the respondent no.6 (now substituted by her heirs).

5. The case further is that so far as the ancestors of the respondents are concerned, late Rama Prasad Verma was allowed to live in one portion of the house by the petitioners' grandfather, Bhola Singh because both were friends and late Rama Prasad Verma had no house to live. The petitioners' grandfather was a simple person and late Rama Prasad Verma committed fraud upon him by taking electric connection in his name as also depositing the Municipality tax, again in his name. The contention is that late Rama Prasad Verma created several forged documents in his name having no relevance for the purpose of lease.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTcyMyMxOTk3IzEjTg==-gXaAuGV40q8=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.