Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 30-3-1982 and 21-6-1982 passed by the Collector of East Champaran in Revision miscellaneous No.109 of 1981-82 as contained in Annexure 1 and 2 respectively and also for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to remove the lock illegally put on the door of the petitioners shop and to put the petitioner in possession thereof as the petition purported to have been dispossessed under the order of Collector by an order dated 5-18-1974 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.124 of 1973 as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner took settlement of a piece of land measuring 10 X 9 out of survey plot No.2224 situate in Motihari town from Bettiah Raj in 1949. The petitioner after taking settlement of the land aforementioned constructed a shop thereupon. According to the petitioner in respect of the land in question a sum of Rs.4 was fixed by way of rent per month. 4. The petitioner had been carrying on grocery business in the said shop ; but some time in the year 1954, the petitioner let out the same to one Abdul sattar for a terms of five years on a mothly rental of Rs.8.50 paise by virtue of an unegistered Kiaryanama. The petitioner has asserted that as the said Abdul sattar defaulted in payment of rent since January, 1958 and as the petitioner allegedly was also in need of the said shop premises reasonably and in good faith for his own use and occupation ; he after serving a notice upon the said Abdul sattar filed a suit for his eviction. 5. According to the petitioner said Abdul Sattar upon receipt of the notice filed a petition before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Motihari for getting his name mutated in respect of the premises in question, which was rejected by an order dated 9-8-1958. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the said Abdul Sattar before the collector, Champaran, which was registered as a Appeal No.7 of 1958-59, which was also dismissed by an order dated 4-2-1959. The said order is contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the said Abdul Sattar before the collector, Champaran, which was registered as a Appeal No.7 of 1958-59, which was also dismissed by an order dated 4-2-1959. The said order is contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Collector in his aforementioned order observed as follows :- "i therefore find that Abdul Sattar has acquired only the right of an under tenant at best and cannot apply for mutation in the records maintainend by the Anchaladhikari. it is rather curious that Abdul sattar while admitting the fact of having paid rent to Kailash Sah and regularly, wants to elbow him out complety by such a petition formulating his name. His intentions do not appear to be genuine. " 6. The petitioner instituted a suit for eviction against Shri Abdul Sattar, which was registered as Title Suit No.122 of 1959. The said suit was decreed. The said Abdul Sattar challenged the aforementioned decree even up to this court, in Second Appeal No.290 of 1973, which was also dismissed by a judgment dated 2-19-1280. The said Abdul Sattar again filed an application for mutation on 9-6-1966 and by an order dated 10-9-1966 the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector directed mutation of Abdul Sattar name in respect of the holdings in question. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order before additional Collector, which was dismissed on 13-8-1966. The petitioner, there after filed a revision application before Divisional Commissioner at Muzaffarpur, which was registered as Case No.39 7/miscellaneous/1966-67 wherein by an order dated 26-6-1971 the said Commissioner allowed the revision application and set aside the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Additional Collector dated 1-9-1966 and 13-12-1966 and 13-12-1966 respectively. 7. The said Abdul Sattar thereafter again filed a fresh application for settlement of the shop but the same was also rejected by the Collector by his order dated 5-11-1974 and a lock which had been put by the Anchal Adhikari at the instigation of said Abdul Sattar was directed to be removed and the petitioner was directed to be put in the possession of the said holdings. 8. The said order, however, was not complied with and the petitioner was not put in possession as allegedly the office of the Anchal Adhikari was acting in collusion with Abdul Sattar. 9. 8. The said order, however, was not complied with and the petitioner was not put in possession as allegedly the office of the Anchal Adhikari was acting in collusion with Abdul Sattar. 9. According to the petitioner, he obtained delivery of possession of the the said shop pursuant to the decree passed-in the aforementioned case,, but a lock was again put up thereafter, which as stated hereinbefore had beeen directed to be removed by the Collector by his aforementioned order dated 5-11-1974. 10. The petitioner, after the decision of the Second Appeal of this court, had also been praying before the Collector to see that his earlier order is implemented. But by an order dated 30th March, 1982 the present _incumbent of the office of Collector reversed the earlier decision of his predecessor in office dated 5-11-1974 and rejected the petitioners prayer to remove the lock. 11. According to the petitioner, various other persons have obtained such settlements from Bettiah Raj but the Collector had not been asking for execution of a fresh lease by any other person in respect of the premises in their respective occupation except the petitioner. Further, according to the petitioner the objection in respect of the petitioners case is being raised at the instigation of Abdul Sattar only. 12. The petitioner filed an application for review before the Collector so far as his order dated 30-3-1982 (Annexure-1) is concerned, which was also dismissed by an order dated 22-6-82. These basis facts are not in dispute. 13. The petitioner, however, has filed a supplementary affidavit where in he has given the details with regard to the delivery of possession effected in respect of the shop in question in terms of the decree passed in his favour. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the warrant issued to the bailiff by the executing court to give possession in Excution Case No.112 of 1973. The said warrant as also the Certificate granting delivery of possession to the petitioner is contained in Annexure 1 to the said supplementary affidavit. 14. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the warrant issued to the bailiff by the executing court to give possession in Excution Case No.112 of 1973. The said warrant as also the Certificate granting delivery of possession to the petitioner is contained in Annexure 1 to the said supplementary affidavit. 14. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state wherein it has been alleged as follows :- "paragraph 8 : "that on the expiry of the lease of the Bettiah Raj, Rai bahadur Rameshwar Singh, Manager Court of Wards, Bettiah estate took lease of the aforesaid lands for the purposes of holding a central market and a deed of lease was executed and registered on 20-6-1946 between the then Collector, Champaran on behalf of the governor and Rai Bahadur Rameshwar Singh on behalf of the court of Wards. The lease was for a period of ten years beginning from 1-4-1945 and was expired on 31-3-1955. " Paragraph 9 : "that the then Bettiah Estate under Court "of Wards, thereafter began to hold market in the land and pieces of land were given to different persons on monthly basis as well on daily toll. A piece of land was also given on monthly rental basis to late Sri laliwar (sic) Prasad, the father of the writ petitioner constructed a shop (Katra) thereon. The market so held was known as Meena Bazar. " Paragraph 10. "that it seems that on the death of his father the writ petitioner without information or approval transferred the same to the respondent No.6 sometime in the year, 1954 and the respondent no.6 was doing business and in possession of the shop in question on the date of the expiry of the lease of Bettiah Estate and taking over possession by the State Government on the expiry of the lease. The State was getting rental from the respondent No.6. " Paragraph 11 : "that the State of Bihar was exercising full control and possession over the lands on which Meena Bazar is situated. Several shop-keepers got lease from the State of Bihar and the shop keepers holding shops etc. were recognised a lessee of the State Government. " 15. The State was getting rental from the respondent No.6. " Paragraph 11 : "that the State of Bihar was exercising full control and possession over the lands on which Meena Bazar is situated. Several shop-keepers got lease from the State of Bihar and the shop keepers holding shops etc. were recognised a lessee of the State Government. " 15. The State, in reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, has stated that the learned Munsif by his order dated 24-8-1973 in executian Case No.112 of 1973 directed that if any lock has already been put by the State of Bihar the delivery of possession would not be effected but in spite thereof the sealed lock was broken open by the Nazir, which as having been done by him in excess of his jurisdiction, the State had again put another lock in the said premises immediately thereafter. 16. In this case the said Abdul Sattar filed an application for intervention, which was allowed by this Court by an order dated 17-7-1987 directing him to be added as respondent No.6. The said Abdul Sattar, thereafter filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has stated that the transfer made by the petitioner to him was in violation of the condition of lease as the property was leased out in his favour by the petitioner without obtaining prior sanction of the Collector. The respondent No.6 further stated that he allegedly had been paying rent to the State of Bihar and the State allegedly had been exercising full control and possession in respect of the premises in question. It may be mentioned here that it has been stated by the State in its counter affidavit that a temporary lease was recommended to be given in favour of the said Abdul Sattar. 17. In this case, the basis facts which are not in dispute are as follows :- (a) The land in question is Khas Mahal land. The said land was granted by the State in favour of Bettiah Raj from 1-4-1945 to 31-3-1955 i. e. for a period of ten years. (b) The said Bettiah Raj constructed a market known as meena Bazzar and the pieces of land were given on lease to various persons including the petitioner and/or his father. (c) The petitioner put the respondent No.6 in possession of the land in question as his tenant. (b) The said Bettiah Raj constructed a market known as meena Bazzar and the pieces of land were given on lease to various persons including the petitioner and/or his father. (c) The petitioner put the respondent No.6 in possession of the land in question as his tenant. (d) The petitioner filed a suit as against the respondent No.6 and the said suit was decreed and the delivery of possession was effected by the executing court. 18. From the facts, as mentioned hereinbefore, it is also evident that the collector had been passing conflicting and contradictory order from time to time. 19. However, from the materials on record, it is evident that the office of the Anchal Adhikari had all along been siding with the respondent No.6. 20. Plainly enough, the Anchal Adhikari is not the authority in terms of the provisions of Khas Mahal Manual nor has he anything to do with the grant of lease so far as Khas Mahal properties are concerned. 21. It is now well known that the Khas Mahal authorities, if there is any violation of the condition of lease or if it intends to resume the land in public interest may do so in accordance with the provisions of the Khas Mahal Manual as also in accordance with terms, conditions and covenents contained in the doucment. 22. It is also settled that the State as. a lessor can not take forcible possession by ejectment a lessee and the same must be done by taking recourse to and in terms of the conditions of lease. Reference in this connection may be made to Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India and others, (1986 Vol. SCC 133) and Lallu Yeshwant singh V/s. Rao Jagdish Singh and others, AIR 1968 SC 620 at page 622. 23. It is also well known that in terms of the provisions contained in the khas Mahal, the State is bound to obtain possession by filing a suit if the lessee and/or any of the transferees from the original lessee refused to comply with the order of Khas Mahal authorities directing him to vacate the premises in question. 24. There is absolutely no denial of the fact that the State has sought to dispossess the petitioner by putting a lock in the shop premises. 24. There is absolutely no denial of the fact that the State has sought to dispossess the petitioner by putting a lock in the shop premises. The same has apparently been done by the Anchal Adhikari without there being any order passed by the competent officer. Even if there had been some orders passed by any officer/any authority in this behalf, the same was clearly beyond his jurisdiction and unauthorised in law. The State is to be governed by the rule of law and not by rule of men. If in the opinion of the State it was entitled to obtain possession of the land in question, because of the expiry of lease or by reason of the fact that any illegality has been committed by the Bettiah Raj in transferring the property in favour of the petitioners father without obtaining any sanction from the competent authority, it was permissible for the Khas mahal authorities to resume possession of the land on the ground of violation of the condition of lease ; but evidently it had no jurisdiction to forcibly dispossess a person, who is in occupation thereof. 25. At this juncture, it may further be noted that the State has not denied the fact that in similar circumstances it had been accepting rent from the other transferees from the Bettiah Raj, who had been holding shops therein. In this view of the matter there cannot have been any earthly reason as to why the petitioner should have been discriminated against. Further the attitude on the part of the authorities in putting the shop in question under lock and key cannot at all be appreciated. Even assuming that the executing court by an order as contained in Annexure a to the counter affidavit allegedly--held that delivery of possession of the premises in question could not be effected if the same was under lock and key put by the State of bihar and assuming that the delivery of possession had been given in violation of the said order, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities of the State not to take law in their own hand but to approach the Civil Court for passing a proper order in this behalf. 26. 26. The State of Bihar, if it was in lawful possession, even could have approached the executing court in terms of the provision of the Code of Civil procedure or could have filed a suit for declaration that the decree passed by it in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.6, was not binding upon the State. Without taking recourse to law, the State sought to put a lock over the premises agains after the delivery of possession was given to the petitioner in terms of the order passed by a competent Civil Court. 27. This aspect of the matter has been considered by me in Manmohan lal Bhagat V/s. State of Bihar, 1988 PLJR 12: 1988 BLJ 152 (RB) and Deba Jyoti dutta and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1988 PLJR 440): ( 1988 BLJ 368 (RB ). 28. It was expected of the executive of the State to give effect to the judgment of a Civil Court and not to put an obstruction in execution of a decree passed by it. It may be true that the State being not a party to the suit instituted by the petitioner against the respondant No.6 was not bound by the decree, but the same does not mean that it would, without taking recourse to law, shall do someling contrary to the sprit of the decree. 29. At the cost of the repetition, it may again be stated that the only course open to the State was to obtain possession by taking recourse to law and not to do so by show of force. Such action on the part of the State has to be deprecated. 30. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, 1 am of the opinion that the State has committed on illegality in putting the seal and a lock in the shop premises in question and thus dispossessing the petitioner therefrom. 31. From the facts, as mentioned hereinbefore, it is also clear that the collector has committed serious illegality in passing the orders as contained in annexure 1 to 3 to the writ petition. 32. 31. From the facts, as mentioned hereinbefore, it is also clear that the collector has committed serious illegality in passing the orders as contained in annexure 1 to 3 to the writ petition. 32. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the order as contained in annexures 1 to 3 are hereby quashed and the respondents No.1 to 6 are directed to put the petitioner in possession to the premises in question within fifteen days for the date of the receipt of a copy of this order by breaking open the lock and the seal, if any, put by them in the shop premises in question. 33. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will however, be no order as to costs. Petitioner allowed.