Land A Natural Resource And Public Property, State Not Allowed To Hand It Over As Largesse To Handpicked Persons: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court in a recent judgement has observed that land being a natural resource belongs to the people and the State is not allowed to hand over this resource as largesse to its handpicked persons in violation of Article 14 and Article 39 (b) of the Constitution of India.

The court made the observation in its decision on an appeal against the order of a single judge directing the State Government to grant rights to the respondent (original writ petitioner) over the subject land on the basis of a sale deed which was executed by the lessee Narendra Nath Ghosh in 1947, to the great grandfather of the respondent.

The bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Arun Kumar Jha observed that natural resources belong to the people and the State holds them on behalf of people.

“The land in question is also a natural resource and being a public property belonging to the people, the State is not allowed to hand over this resources as the State Largesse to its handpicked persons in violation of the Article 14 and Article 39 (b) of the Constitution of India,” the court said, adding it can be given to someone only after giving opportunity to others as well as keeping in the mandate of Article 39 (b) of the Constitution of India in mind.

The court said If the "State Largesse" is to be given, then it ought to be by way of a notice to general public and not in surreptitious manner.

Background

Narendra Narayan Ghosh, was granted the lease of a Bihar Government Khas Mahal land, situated within the Purnea Municipality, on 23.08.1938 for 30 years. He subsequently sold the subject land to the great grandfather of the respondent, Sidharth Pratap by a registered Sale Deed in 1947.

Following the death of the great grandfather of the respondent, his father applied for the renewal of the lease in his favour. However, he passed away in 1998 before the lease renewal could be finalised. Thereafter, the respondent pursued the matter further.

Ultimately, the Additional Collector, Purnea by his letter dated 05.09.2002 informed the respondent that the renewal of lease of the land in question was not possible and he might apply for grant of fresh lease. The respondent applied before the Additional Collector, Purnea on 18.09.2022 for grant of fresh lease in his favour.

After due consideration of the application, the Additional Collector, Purnea informed the respondent that lease settlement of the subject land was being made with him and as per the order of the Collector, Purnea, he had to deposit salami amount of Rs. 2,97,123.75 in Government treasury within a fortnight.

In compliance with the Collector's directions, the respondent deposited the required amount. However, even after the deposit, no deed of lease was executed by the competent authority in his favour.

Thereafter, the respondent moved the High Court through a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge. However, the State of Bihar filed a Letters Patent Appeal, being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge.

The counsel for the State argued that the original leaseholder had no right to transfer the land without the Collector's permission and any transfer without obtaining such permission would be illegal and therefore void ab initio. The counsel further submitted that the Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the status of the respondent and his ancestors on the subject land was that of a trespasser.

Advocate Gyanand Roy, appearing for the respondent, argued that a huge amount of Rs. 2,97,123.75 had been deposited by him for execution of lease deed in his favour which was lying idle with the appellants for about 20 years. He pointed out that it was the authorities themselves who asked the respondent to come forward to enter into a fresh lease and, accordingly, he deposited the said amount on 12.03.2003.

Verdict

While referring to Rule 17 read with Part II of Appendix A (1) of Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, 1953, General Form of Lease, the bench said that the lease could not have been transferred or sold in absence of specific written approval of the Collector of the district concerned.

“A bare perusal of the General Form of Lease shows that the lessee could not have transferred or sold the land in absence of specific written approval of the Collector of the district concerned. However, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the appellate authority to confer any right on him. On the ground of clear provision of law, the transfer to the great grandfather of the writ petitioner of the land concerned by an instrument of sale was void ab initio. Therefore, the writ petitioner could not get any title or right over the land in question,” the bench held.

While observing that there was no renewal of the lease in favour of either the grandfather or father or the respondent by the State Government, the bench further said that the status of the respondent on the subject land was that of a trespasser.

“This fact is fortified by the attempts of the writ petitioner to get the lease of the land renewed in his favour, and even if the original lease could have continued, it would have come to an end in 1967,” observed the bench.

While allowing the appeal, the bench held that the Single Judge had erred while allowing the writ petition of the petitioner-present respondent.

Case Title: The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Sidharth Pratap Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2162 of 2013

Appearance :For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7 Mr. Abhishek Singh, AC to GA-7Mr.Ajit KumarFor the Respondent/s : Mr.Gyanand Roy, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment