Referring to Rules 17 of the General Form which states that there should have been a specific written approval by the Collector to allow the lessee to transfer the land, and non-compliance of same would render the sale deed made in favour of the Respondent’s great grandfather as void ab initio, the Patna High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and held that since there was no valid sale deed and no renewal of the same in favour of the Respondent’s grandfather or father, they will remain as a trespasser.

The Division Bench of Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Arun Kumar Jha also observed that “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”.

Advocate Gyan Prakash Ojha appeared for the Appellants, whereas Advocate Gyanand Roy appeared for the Respondent.

Going by the background of the case, the Respondent had approached the Single Judge of this Court seeking direct to the State to issue a fresh lease deed in his favour with respect to the suit land. This was opposed by the State by submitting that the original land owner held the land as a lessee on behalf of the State and had no right to sell the same land in favour of the great grandfather of the Respondent without following proper procedure prescribed in the Manual. It was also argued that no permission was taken by the Collector to transfer and therefore, the status of ancestors of the Respondent was that of a trespasser. The Respondent submitted that the Appellants had asked him to submit a salami amount of Rs.2.97 lacs for a fresh lease deed in 2003, which he did, however, in 2016 he was asked to withdraw the said amount.

After considering the submission, the Bench while relying on Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India and Others [(1996) 6 SCC], and Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India, observed that the State holds natural resources on behalf of the people and the State is not allowed to hand over such a resource as the State Largesse to its handpicked persons and if done so, it would be violation of Article 14 and 39.

“If the said land is to be settled, it would be only after giving opportunity to others as well as keeping in the mandate of Article 39 (b) of the Constitution of India in mind. 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”, added the Bench.

The Bench highlighted that the State authorities cannot renew the lease of the writ Petitioner in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, as they are under bounden duty to follow the due procedure regarding the settlement of lease which they hold as trustees of property of the people.

With respect to contention of the Respondent that as the suit filed by the State was dismissed for default, hence, he had acquired the right in his favour, the Bench dismissed it on the ground of lack of any merit, and finally set aside the order passed by the Single Judge in favour of the Respondent.

Cause Title: The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sidharth Pratap

Click here to read/download Order



Patna High CourtJustice P.B BajanthriJustice Arun Kumar Jha

Pankaj Bajpai