JUDGEMNT Tapen Sen, J.- Heard r. P.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.N. Sahadeo assisted by Mrs. J. Majumdar for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order/letter dated 15.9.1992 as contained at Annexure 8, by reason whereof the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Respondent No.3) has directed the petitioner to deposit the sum of, Rs. 1,72,500/- as Salami and has enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs. 8,625/- per annum, treating the petitioner's lease to be a commercial lease. 3. The short facts which are necessary to be stated in this case, are that the Ministry of Industry, Government of India and the Industrial Financial Corporation of India jointly invited/requested the Asahi Glass Company Ltd. of Japan to set up an industrial venture by purchasing the assets of Sodepur Glass Company which was then under liquidation with the Industrial Financial Corporation of India. Subsequently, the Asahi Glass Company Ltd. invested a huge capital and remodeled the entire infrastructure and the setup and subsequently the petitioner company, namely, the Indo Asahi Glass Company Ltd. came into existence. 4. The petitioner has further stated that taking into consideration, the necessity of continuous supply of water, a registered indenture of lease was executed between the State Government and petitioner company on or about 30.6.1961, whereby and whereunder an area comprising of 6.90 acres in different plots and in different villages were demised in favour of the petitioner-company for the purposes of construction of a dam for supply of water to the petitioner. 5. The aforementioned period of lease was to expire on 30.1.1991, as a result whereof by reason of the letter dated 29.12.1990 as contained at Annexure 2 to the writ application, the petitioner exercised its option for renewal for a further period of 30 (thirty) years. 6. Thereafter the renewal application moved from one table to the other and petitioner was called upon to submit the receipts showing up-to-date payment of rent and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh by letter dated 23.8.1991 informed the petitioner that renewal application had been accepted on payment of Rs. 690/- as rent to be paid annually. In support of the aforesaid contention the petitioner has annexed Annexure 4. The petitioner was not only informed about the aforesaid fixation of Rs. 690/- as rent to be paid annually. In support of the aforesaid contention the petitioner has annexed Annexure 4. The petitioner was not only informed about the aforesaid fixation of Rs. 690/- as annual rent but was also called upon to present its draft lease for execution and for completion of other formalities. 7. The initial lease having been granted at the rate of Rs. 17.83 per annum and salami at the rate of Rs. 178.28, the petitioner, accordingly, requested that the renewal has to be done in terms of the renewal clause, i.e. at a rate not exceeding twice the rent. Accordingly, the petitioner requested that in terms of this clause, rent should not exceed Rs. 35.66 per annum. The petitioner has stated that perhaps, it was on account of aforementioned letter that the respondent NO.3 (Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh) took exception to the aforesaid letter and all of a sudden the petitioners were asked to go to the Commissioner, as according to them no revision could be made in the matter relating to the decision, which had already been taken in relation to renewal in the manner indicated above, i.e. at the rate of RS.690/-.The petitioner has stated that they approached the Commissioner by their letter dated 28.12.1991, but in the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, all of a sudden directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,72,500/- as salami and informed that the rental of the renewal shall be at the rate of Rs. 8,625/- per annum. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this writ application and one of the grounds canvassed by the writ petitioner is that such an order could not have been passed inasmuch as it is totally unilateral and it is contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease. They have also stated that they had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, being Miscellaneous Revenue Appeal No. 139 of 1992, but it was dismissed by order dated 30.7.1993. According to the petitioner, the respondents have, perhaps, proceeded on the wrong assumption that the area was khas maha/land. 9. According to the writ petitioners, the order of the Commissioner passed in the aforementioned appeal entirely process as if the land is khas mahal land and therefore salami etc. has been fixed as per the provisions appertaining to the khas maha/leases. 10. 9. According to the writ petitioners, the order of the Commissioner passed in the aforementioned appeal entirely process as if the land is khas mahal land and therefore salami etc. has been fixed as per the provisions appertaining to the khas maha/leases. 10. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that by letter No. 1452 dated 21.5.1983 issued by the Government of Bihar, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms it had been directed that a survey of all lands should be made which are used for commercial purposes and that such lands could be leased out for commercial purposes but salami equal to market value of the land should be charged and it should be computed as 5% of the salami. As the respondents have submitted that on the basis of aforesaid letter and instructions, the market value of this land in question had been fixed at Rs. 25,000/- per acre on the basis of fixation of market value of the land of Ramgarh-Patratu Area Divisional Commission, Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in 1962. According to the respondents, the aforementioned circular was issued after the execution of the lease and therefore as such payment of salami and enhanced rate of rent had not been demanded but at the time of renewal it was decided that unless salami and rent was charged/enhanced it would go against the State's Revenue Policy. 11. From the rival contention of the parties, it is, therefore, apparent that the respondents have proceeded entirely on the assumption that the land is a khas mahal land. Now from a perusal of Annexure 1, which the deed of lease, it is apparent that such a presumption/assumption was totally misconceived inasmuch as the land in question was a "Gair Mazurva Khas Land" as has been specifically mentioned in the schedule appended to the indenture of lease. 12. "Gair Mazurwa Khas Lands" are uncultivated lands which were in the possession of the landlords prior to their vesting. So far as khas mahal lands are concerned, they can be created only in the manner laid in Rule 2, Part I of the Bihar Government Estates (Khas Maha~ Manual, 1953. This land, therefore, could never be said to be a khas mahal land. That being the position, the instruction relied upon by the respondents, i.e. letter/instruction dated 21.5.1983 is totally and completely misconceived. This land, therefore, could never be said to be a khas mahal land. That being the position, the instruction relied upon by the respondents, i.e. letter/instruction dated 21.5.1983 is totally and completely misconceived. In fact, this letter/instruction cannot be made applicable on lands which are not khas mahal lands. In the case of I.T.C. Ltd. VS. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1994(1) BLJR 1988, it has, intel alia been held that a fair and equitable rent has to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and not in terms of the directives issued by the State of Bihar from time to time under the Khas Mahal Manual. In the said judgment it has also been held that the circular dated 21.5.1983 applies only the management of Khas mahal land. The aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench in the case referred to above was delivered and it was held that the aforementioned circular applies only to Khas mahal estates and therefore, it cannot be said that in relation to fixation of rent in all other lands, the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act must necessarily be taken into consideration. In other words, all that is necessary, is that the respondents must necessarily act fairly and reasonably in matters relating to fixation of rent. So far as charging of salami in the present case is concerned, the same cannot be sustained inasmuch as there is no provision nor the respondents have brought any such provision on record to satisfy this Court, that they had the right or that they had the authority to fix salami of Rs. 1,72,500/-. 13. Accordingly, the impugned decision is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribah (Respondent No.3) to dispose off .the matter in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the observations made above with a further direction that they will now forthwith proceed to execute the lease without any further delay. 14. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application is disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs.