JUDGMENT NAGENDRA RAI, J. 1. With the consent of the parties the writ application has been heard at the stage of admission itself and is being disposed of by this order. 2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 3.3.1994 contained in memo no. 484 passed by the Collector, Patna (respondent no. 3) by which he has resumed the land of plot no. 2100 area 3.64 acres and building standing thereon situate on road no. 15, Gardanibagh in exercise of power under Rule 21 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, 1953, for the public purpose and directed the Anchal Adhikari to take possession of the same. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application. The petitioner has also challenged the action of the respondent authorities in taking forcible possession of the aforesaid land and the structures standing thereon on 10.3.1994. 3. There is no dispute that the said land belongs to the State Government and the same was leased out to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner's case is that it is a society registered under the Society Registration Act. The persons employed in the provincial Secretariat of the then province of Bihar and Orissa on 23.11.1916 established a library and a institute at Ranchi. At that time Ranchi was the temporary Capital of the then provision of Bihar and Orissa on separation from Bengal. Later on when the capital was shifted to Patna the aforesaid library and institute also shifted to Patna. In the year 1920 the then local government gave the aforesaid piece of land for establishing the library and institute and also sanctioned Rs. 2000/- for constructing a building. On 18.12.1920, Sir Edwar Albert Gait, the then Governor of Bihar and Orissa laid the foundation stone of the building of the library and the institute and the said institution was named after him. The amount given by the government was not sufficient to meet the cost of construction of the library, so the office bearers of the institute collected donations from the public and constructed the building. The main object for opening the library and the institute was to provide within an easy reach to the residents of the capital area an institution which might cater to their varying tastes of intellectual, moral, physical and social well being. 5. The main object for opening the library and the institute was to provide within an easy reach to the residents of the capital area an institution which might cater to their varying tastes of intellectual, moral, physical and social well being. 5. In early thirties, a part of the land was acquired by the State Government for construction of the Water Tower on Road No. 13, in Gardanibagh and also for the Gardanibagh Thakurbari and only about 3 acres of land remained in possession of the library and the institute. In 1934 the building was damaged due to earthquake as a result of which several books and papers were lost. In 1975 as well, due to flood in the Patha town the papers concerning the library and the books were damaged and lost. Due to the aforesaid reasons the documents including deed of lease of land executed in 1920 was not traceable, however, a deed lease executed in the year, 1939 (Annexure-13) was made available after great efforts, from perusal of which it transpires that on 10th November, 1925 a lease for 10 years was executed in favour of the institute. It further appears that after expiry of the aforesaid period the petitioner with the consent of the lessor State Government remained in possession of the land and building and a fresh lease was executed in the year, 1939 for a period of 10 years commencing from February, 1935. After expiry of the aforesaid period of lease the petitioner continued in possession and the Government from time to time granted aid and also appointed its nominees in the Managing Committee of the library. 6. In the year, 1991 the Secretary of the Library was asked to attend the meeting in the chamber of the Chief Minister with regard to selection of a site of Gardanibagh College. The Secretary participated and suggested different sites. Thereafter, without any information or opportunity of hearing the impugned order has been passed by the Collector resuming the land and directing the Anchal Adhikari to take the possession of the land and in pursuance of which the possession of the land in question has been taken. 7. The Secretary participated and suggested different sites. Thereafter, without any information or opportunity of hearing the impugned order has been passed by the Collector resuming the land and directing the Anchal Adhikari to take the possession of the land and in pursuance of which the possession of the land in question has been taken. 7. According to the petitioner the institution has been running without any hindrance and is in uninterrupted possession of the land since, 1920 when it was given to it and has been holding it and making use of it by constructing building thereon for the aforesaid purposes and the action of the State Government in resuming and taking forcible possession of the land and building is unsustainable in law and is example of high handed, arbitrary and unauthorised action on its part. 8. The respondent State and its officers have filed a counter affidavit and they have stated that the lease expired in the year, 1945 and thereafter the petitioner never applied for the renewal of the lease nor he had paid any rent to the State Government of Bihar and as such it was in occupation of the land without any authority of law and its position is that of trespasser and in that view of the matter no notice was required to be given to the petitioner under Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual or under any other law before resuming the land. It was also asserted that they have already taken possession of the land in question. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Rule 21 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual has no application in this case and the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order and taking forcible possession is unauthorised and unwarranted in law and this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction should restore the possession of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner was in possession since 1925 even according to the stand of the State and as such after the expiry of the lease it can be evicted only in accordance with law and the respondent State and its officers have no authority to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the land and the building. 10. It was also submitted that the petitioner was in possession since 1925 even according to the stand of the State and as such after the expiry of the lease it can be evicted only in accordance with law and the respondent State and its officers have no authority to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the land and the building. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General No. II appearing on behalf of the State fairly conceded that there is no dispute regarding the settled proposition of law that State has no power to take possession in an unauthorised manner. The State or its officers have to follow the rule of law and they can take possession by the procedure known in law. However, he contended that the land has been taken in possession by the State for public purposes that is to say for the purpose of shifting the Gardanibagh Girls College and as such the action taken by the respondent State and the Collector is in terms of Rule 21 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual and thus no complaint can be made against the State and its officers that they resumed and took the possession of the land in an unauthorised manner. According to him as since 1945 the petitioner, admittedly, has not filed application for renewal of lease this Court cannot exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner especially when it appears that he has used the leased out premises for other purposes apart from the purpose for which it was leased out to it. 11. From the facts, as stated above, it is clear that the lease of the petitioner expired in the year 1945 and as such at present there is no valid lease existing with regard to the land in dispute. It is an also admitted position that prior to the passing of the impugned order and resumption and taking possession of the land, the same was in possession of the petitioner. Even after expiry of the time of the lease the Government granted aid to the petitioner from time to time and appointed its nominee in the Managing Committee of the petitioner (See Annexure-15 series and 16). 12. Even after expiry of the time of the lease the Government granted aid to the petitioner from time to time and appointed its nominee in the Managing Committee of the petitioner (See Annexure-15 series and 16). 12. The only question which has to be answered in this case is as to whether the respondent's action in resuming and taking possession of the land under Rule 21 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual has any sanction in the eye of law. 13. In the case of Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Narayan Roy, 51 Ind App. 293 at page 299 it was held by the Privy Council that "In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a Court." 14. In the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his L.Rs. vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 S.C. 2097 , it was held that it is well settled in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. 15. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & other vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh etc., AIR, 1989 S.C. 997, it was held that though in exercise of power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the Court cannot go into question as to whether forfeiture and cancellation of the lease is valid or not, it was observed that a lessor, with the best of title has no right to resume possession extra judicially by use of force, from a lessee, even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease by forfeiture or otherwise. The use of the expression re-entry in the lease deed does not authorise extrajudicial methods to resume possession. Under law, the possession of lease, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is juridicial possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited; a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. 16. In Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 1967 Mohan Lal vs. The State of Punjab, disposed of on 25.11.1969 the Apex Court speaking through Hedge, J, observed that under our jurisprudence even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in the manner authorised by law. 16. In Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 1967 Mohan Lal vs. The State of Punjab, disposed of on 25.11.1969 the Apex Court speaking through Hedge, J, observed that under our jurisprudence even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in the manner authorised by law. This is the essence of the rule of law. It was also observed that a person in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, if they are being evicted in a manner not authorised by law. 17. Thus, it is clear that if the lessee has remained in possession even after the expiry of the lease his possession is juridicial possession and he can be evicted only according to the procedure known in law. He cannot be evicted forcibly or in any manner not authorised in law. No doubt, if there is a forfeiture and cancellation of the lease tile matter cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution as the determination on the said point requires investigation as to factual matters and the writ application would not be an appropriate remedy but even after cancellation of forfeiture of the lease the lessor can take possession only in a manner known or recognised by law. He cannot take possession by adopting a manner not authorised by law. 18. In the present case according to the respondents they have resumed the land in exercise of power under Rule 21 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual. The said Rule 21 runs as follows:– Rule 21: Resumption should be for public purpose only when a tenant holds land from Government under a lease containing a clause which authorises the lessor to resume possession of the whole or part of the land of the tenancy, this power of resumption shall only be exercised if the land is required for a public purpose and the power of resumption shall not be exercised without the sanction of Government obtained through the Board of Revenue. If such land be required for the use of persons other than Government e.g., for a local body, it should ordinarily be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and not under the power of resumption given by lease. If such land be required for the use of persons other than Government e.g., for a local body, it should ordinarily be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and not under the power of resumption given by lease. Rule 22, which is also relevant for the purpose of this case, runs as follows:– Rule 22: Khas Possession can only be taken through Civil Court if lessee objects-when in a lease it is provided that in the event of certain contingencies occurring, the Collector will enter upon and take Khas or direct possession of the property, it must be understood that, where the settlement-holder objects, possession cannot be taken save under the orders of a competent Civil Court." 19. It is to be noticed here that the respondent Collector has exercised a power vested in him under Rule 21 of the Khas Mahal Manual it is not a case of determination of lease pure and simple between private parties. The discretion vested in the public authorities is not unfettered in the sense that they can do things according to their private opinion or humour. Every holder of public office is a trustee and he has to discharge his duties according to the rules of reason and justice and his actions should be guided by law and not by him. His actions should not be arbitrary, irrational, vague and fanciful but legal and regular. 20. According to the State, as stated above, after 1945 the lease was not extended and even the petitioner has no document in his possession to show that after 1945 the lease was extended. Admitted position is that there was no lease at the time when the impugned order was passed, though, as stated above, government did not take any action for eviction, on the other hand granted aid and appointed its nominee in the committee of the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner after passing of the impugned order filed an objection before the Collector under Rule 22 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ application. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner after passing of the impugned order filed an objection before the Collector under Rule 22 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ application. 21 A bare reading of Rule 21 shows that power of resumption can be exercised on fulfillment of two conditions; firstly there should be a provision in the lease authorising the lessor to resume possession of the whole or part of the land and secondly if the land is required for a public purpose. The question of resumption arises when the lease is existing. If the period of lease has expired then in my view question of resumption does not arise and the lessor after expiry of the period may take possession of the land according to law or extend the period as the case may be. In this case as the period of lease expired there is no question of resumption of the land in exercise of power under Rule 21 of the Khas Mahal Manual. 22. However, even assuming that this rule is applicable the question is as to whether the authorities have acted according to the said rule. From perusal of Annexure-13 (copy of the lease deed appended with the supplementary affidavit filed on 1.11.1994) it is evident that there is a clause containing a provision for resumption for public purpose. It provides for payment of compensation for building etc. It also contains a clause that in case of partial resumption remaining portion will remain with lessee. The relevant clauses are reproduced below:– "That should the said land or any portion thereof be at any time required by the government for any purpose declared by government to be a public purpose the Collector may on giving three months notice in writing through any officer or person authorised on that behalf re-enter and take possession of the said land or a portion thereof. The lessee shall in a case be entitled to compensation for buildings and other improvements erected and made with the consent of the said government the land resumed the amount of such compensation to be fixed by the Collector of Patna and not to exceed the cost of the present value whichever shall be less or any building erected or other works executed on the land by the lessee in fulfillment of the special purpose or purposes for which the land was leased. Regard shall be had in fixing the compensation to the condition of repairs and depreciation but not to any increase in rent at value or any commercial value of the said land and buildings and the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector of Patna shall be final, conclusive and binding on the lessee. That if a portion only of the said land is resumed the provisions of this lease shall remain in full force and effect as regards the portion of the said land not resumed save that the lessee shall not be entitled to any reduction in the said rent (proportionate to the area so resumed) provided that if a portion only of the said land is resumed and the lessee shall so required the whole of the said land shall be resumed and this lease shall be determined." 23. Admittedly, no three months notice has been given to lessee nor any steps have been taken to determine the compensation for the buildings etc. From perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-7) it appears that the government has taken the decision to resume the land on the ground that petitioner is using the land and building for purposes other than for which the land was leased. It is stated apart from running the library the premises is being used for running Sishu Bharti School, ladies training centre, Music training centre etc. The Collector on the basis of decision of the State Government to resume the land has passed the order under Rule 21 of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) manual resuming the land for public purposes. The Collector has not stated in the impugned order regarding the public purpose. Resumption on the ground of breach of the terms of the tenancy could not be said to be a public purpose as mentioned in the rule. 24. The Collector has not stated in the impugned order regarding the public purpose. Resumption on the ground of breach of the terms of the tenancy could not be said to be a public purpose as mentioned in the rule. 24. From paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it appears that the land is being resumed for the purposes of handing over the same to a College. It means land is being resumed for use of persons other than government. In such a situation according to Rule 21 land cannot be resumed and the State government has to acquired the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus for the aforesaid reasons impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities and accordingly not sustainable in law. 25. There is another hurdle in the way of the respondents. Rule 22 provides inter alia that when in a lease deed it is provided that, in the event of certain contingencies occurring, the Collector will enter upon and take Khas or direct possession of the property, it must be understood that, where the settlement holder objects possession cannot be taken save under the orders of a competent Civil Court. 26. From the terms of the lease it is clear that there is provision of taking possession on certain contingencies and as such Rule 22 applies. The petitioner has objected to taking of the possession by filing a petition and in that view of the matter the respondent can taken possession under the order of competent Civil Court. They cannot take forcible possession. 27. By the impugned order the State has attempted to take possession of the land in a purported exercise of Rule 21. It has no applicability in the case and as such the impugned order has no sanction in law and has to be quashed. The action of the respondent State and the Collector and his Subordinate officers in taking forcible possession on the basis of the said order is also unauthorised. As stated above, the petitioner is continuing in possession for more them 70 years over the land and has constructed building and the same is being used as a library and institute and for some other purpose also. Even after the expiry of the lease its possession is juridical one and that can be taken away only by the process known in law. Even after the expiry of the lease its possession is juridical one and that can be taken away only by the process known in law. The respondents have no authority in law to resume and take possession of the land by virtue of an order which stated above is nonest in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and it is held that the act of the respondents in taking possession of the land in question is unauthorised and arbitrary. In view of such high handed act on the part of the State and its officers this Court with a view to maintain majesty of law has to pass an order for restoration of possession of the petitioner. 28. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 is quashed and the respondent Collector is directed to hand over the possession of the premises and all books with regard to which inventory has been prepared in pursuance of the order passed by this Court to the petitioner within three weeks from today. 29. In the result the application is allowed with the aforesaid observation. In the facts and circumstances, respondents are directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner. The amount of cost should be spent by the library for purchasing books for the children.