JUDGMENT By Court.- The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order dated 30.8.1997, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh said to have rejected the petition purported to have been filed for renewal of her sub-lease with respect to 4 decimals of land being holding No. 179, Khata No. 745/774 situated in Village Okni in the District of Hazaribagh and also for a direction to the Respondents to renew the lease of the petitioner for 30 years, i.e. from 1978 to March 2008. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that holding No. 179 Plot No. 745/774 total area 0.92 acres of land situated in Village Okni was leased out in favour of Chhotanagpur Banking Association on 1.4.1948. The Chhotanagpur Banking Association went in liquidation and as per the order of Patna High Court, one Sri U.P. Mathur was appointed as its Liquidator. By the order of the Company Judge of the High Court out of the aforesaid 0.92 acres of land, 0.88 acres of land was transferred by way of sale to Sardar Khajan Singh and Sardar Lal Singh. For the remaining 0.04 acres of land, Sri U.P. Mathur, i.e. the Liquidator had applied for renewal of the Khas Maha/lease. On the basis of which the proceeding was initiated by the Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribag, which was registered as Hazaribagh Case No. 180/77-78. In the said proceeding, the petitioner Dr. Pritha Chatterji, filed an application stating therein that holding No. 179, Plot No. 745/ 77 4 area 37 ft. x 22 fl. was given on sublease by the Chhotanagpur Banking Association to her husband Late B.C. Chatterji on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. She further stated that after the death of Late B.C. Chatterji, she being the widow, was in possession of 0.04 acres of land and, therefore, the lease should be renewed with her. From the registered sub-lease deed, which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, it appears that only 0.02 acres of land was given on sub-lease by the Chhotanagpur Banking Association to Late Binay Chandra Chatterji, the husband of the petitioner Dr. Pritha Chatterji, but the petitioner claimed that she was in possession of 0.04 acres of land, i.e. more than the area what was sub-leased to her husband Late Dr. Pritha Chatterji, but the petitioner claimed that she was in possession of 0.04 acres of land, i.e. more than the area what was sub-leased to her husband Late Dr. Binay Chandra Chatterji by the Chhotanagpur Banking Association Ltd. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was asked as to whether she was willing to take settlement of the aforesaid land as per the terms and conditions of the lease and then the petitioner had given in writing that she wants renewal of the lease as she was in possession over the lease hold area and she is ready to pay amount for renewal of the lease. On the basis of which the Khas Mahal Officer recommended that the said piece of land can be settled with the petitioner provided that she makes payment of the land @ Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 400/- as yearly rent. Further case of the petitioner is that the Additional Collector by his order dated 4.5.1985 ordered that the said land can be settled with the petitioner after she deposit Rs. 8000/- as Salami and Rs. 800/- as yearly rent being 10 percent of the Salami by 27.7.1985. Subsequently, the Revenue Department sent a letter whereby direction was issued to send proposal after making fresh assessment of value of the land. The value of the land was freshly assessed at Rs. 5 lacs per acre. The matter remained pending since 1978 till 1997 for one reason or the other and ultimately by order dated 30.8.1997. contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, the petition filed by the petitioner for renewal of the lease was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, which has been challenged in this writ application. The petitioner prayed that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh wrongly and illegally passed the order rejecting his petition for renewal of the sub-lease in her favour though she is in possession of the 0.04 acres of land in question and she was ready to take the same on settlement by Khas Mahal sub-lease. 4. From the impugned order it appears that on enquiry it come to light that 37 ft. x 22 ft. of the land in question was presently in occupation of one Manish Agrawal, whom the petitioner had given power of attorney to look after the property but the power of attorney holder was doing business in the said premises. 5. 4. From the impugned order it appears that on enquiry it come to light that 37 ft. x 22 ft. of the land in question was presently in occupation of one Manish Agrawal, whom the petitioner had given power of attorney to look after the property but the power of attorney holder was doing business in the said premises. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. The claim of the petitioner has seriously been contested by the Respondents. From the statement made in the counter affidavit it appears that the case of the Respondents is that the petitioner was neither a leaseholder nor her husband Dr. B.C. Chatterji was a leaseholder and, if at all Dr. B.C. Chatterji was given sub-lease by the Chhotanagpur Banking Association even then also on the expiry of the period of sub-lease on 31.1.1978, he should have handed over the possession of the said land to the Chhotanagpur Banking Association but after the expiry of the said sub-lease. the petitioner illegally remained in possession of the land and, hence, she was a trespasser and she also made encroachment of laser area than what was given to her husband in sub-lease. 6. It is submitted that since the petitioner was not a Lessee and the Khas Mahal/lease was not granted in her favour by any competent authority and, therefore, she could not have claimed renewal of the lease over the land in question. It was only the lease holder could have applied for renewal of the lease and not the petitioner in any manner, who was not even sub-lessee also and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner rightly rejected the prayer for renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner. 7. Mr. It was only the lease holder could have applied for renewal of the lease and not the petitioner in any manner, who was not even sub-lessee also and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner rightly rejected the prayer for renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner. 7. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was neither a lease-holder nor a sub-lessee of the Chhotanagpur Banking Association but admittedly, she was in possession of the land in question and is in possession through her power of attorney holder Manish Agrawal and, therefore, before rejecting the prayer for renewal of the lease by the Deputy Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, an opportunity should have been given to her for hearing and, since, no such reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to her and, therefore, the principles of natural justice was violated and on that grounds the impugned order, contained in Annexure-1, cannot be sustained. Mr. Roy, by citing a decision in the case of "Deba Jyoti Dutta & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1988 BBCJ 115 [ : 1988 PLJR 440]" has further submitted that the renewal of lease is a matter of course and even if the prayer for renewal of Khas Mahal lease i.~ rejected then also for getting back the possession even from a trespasser, the State has to .follow the procedure provided under the Khas Mahal Manual and no one can be forcibly evicted without taking recourse to law. 8. The submission of Mr. Roy that Annexure-1 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice is fit to be rejected simply on the ground that the petitioner herself had applied for renewal of the lease in her favour and her application was duly considered and, thereafter, by a reasoned impugned order the same has been rejected. She was given proper and adequate opportunity before passing the impugned order. Therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice was violated. 9. From the impugned order it appears that the Deputy Commissioner has held that it was not a case of renewal of lease rather it was a case for fresh lease. The Deputy Commissioner, got the matter enquired into at various levels and also by spot inspection. Therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice was violated. 9. From the impugned order it appears that the Deputy Commissioner has held that it was not a case of renewal of lease rather it was a case for fresh lease. The Deputy Commissioner, got the matter enquired into at various levels and also by spot inspection. He noticed the fact that Manish Kumar had stated during enquiry that he was given power of attorney by Smt. Pritha Chatterji for looking after the land and building and he was in possession of the land and building. The learned Deputy Commissioner held that Dr. Pritha Chatterji, i.e. the petitioner was the wife of the Ex Sub-lessee Dr. Binay Chandra Chatterji and the period of sub-lease had also expired on 31.1.1978. Pritha Chatterjee had made encroachment also and also made construction of a Khapra Posh House over the encroached area. 10. The learned Deputy Commissioner after holding that neither the petitioner nor her husband were the Lessee rather the Lessee was the Chhotanagpur Banking Association, which gave on sub-lease to the husband of the petitioner, which also expired on 31.1.1978 and, therefore, the petitioner should have handed over the possession of the land and building in question to the Chhotanagpur Banking Association but she did not do so. She was a rank tres-passer. It was further held that she had became too old and she has already left Hazaribagh and was living at Kolkata. The Deputy Commissioner further held that though the land in question was given on sub-lease to the husband of the petitioner lamely B.C. Chatterji for running a private clinic but the power of attorney holder Manish Kumar Agrawal was using the said premises for commercial purposes and was running a Garments shop and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get renewal of the lease in her favour. 11. The reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, as noticed above, in my view, are perfectly justified and the Deputy Commissioner rightly rejected the prayer for renewal of the !ease made by the petitioner. I hold that the petitioner was neither entitled nor had any right to claim renewal of the Khas Mahallease. It was only the liquidator who could have applied and could have granted renewal of Khas Mahal/lease. 12. I hold that the petitioner was neither entitled nor had any right to claim renewal of the Khas Mahallease. It was only the liquidator who could have applied and could have granted renewal of Khas Mahal/lease. 12. So far as the decision in the case of "Deba Jyoti Dutta" (supra) is concerned, the same has got no application in the facts and circum5tances of the case because in to said case the petitioner had approached the High Court after he was forcibly evicted from the leasehold premises and the authorities had evicted him without taking recourse to law as provided under the Khas Mahal Manual. That situation has not come in the present case. 13. In view of the above discussions and findings, I hold that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for any interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed. No costs.