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.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ.)
S.Sb/-
(Jyoti Saran, J.)