Judgment 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 6.1.2003 as communicated to them by the respondents stating that as they have violated the terms of the khas Mahal lease, the Govt. has directed not to grant renewal, the property lease is to be resumed. By supplementary affidavit petitioners have brought on record order issued to handover the property within a month. 2. The petitioners submit that it is clear and apparent from the impugned order that the real reason for refusing to renew the lease is the act of the petitioners in leasing out certain parts of the leased land to others. !n the counter affidavit by the State this fact is also brought on record. Thus the question for consideration is as to whether this act would entail cancellation of the lease or not. 3. The petitioners have brought to my notice order dated 14.4.1973 by the Collector, Patna. This order specifically deals with the question of violation of lease as a consequence of the said alleged transfer. The Collector took opinion of the Government Pleader and by a speaking order (Annexure-3) held that such alleged transfers were not breach of the lease conditions. He further held that no case for cancellation of lease and or refusal of its renewal was made out and closed the proceedings. It appears that the proceedings were restarted when the petitioners made application for renewal and mutation of their name consequent to the death of their father late Nageshwar Pd. Senior Advocate. 4. In my view once the matter was considered and closed by the Collector by his order dated 14.4.1973, the same matter could not be reopened again at a later stage. Moreover it is stated in the writ application that those alleged transfers were made under very special circumstances and subsequent to the earlier order of the Collector and prior to making of the application for renewal those persons had been evicted by orders of court and breach if any had been cured. 5. Thus, it is evident that firstly the Collector himself was competent to take and took the view that there was no breach. Subsequently the Collector, when application for renewal is made, changed his opinion and recommended as such to the Govt. which recommendation was accepted. In my view there has to be finality even in administrative matters. 5. Thus, it is evident that firstly the Collector himself was competent to take and took the view that there was no breach. Subsequently the Collector, when application for renewal is made, changed his opinion and recommended as such to the Govt. which recommendation was accepted. In my view there has to be finality even in administrative matters. Once the Collector had taken a particular view of the matter and closed the proceedings the same ought not to have been reopened. No one ever challenged the earlier order passed 30 years back. Even otherwise in view of the provisions of Section 114(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. If a breach which results in the forfeiture of lease is remediable, opportunity to remedy should first be given before ordering for forfeiture. However, as the persons were evicted no breach subsists. 6. In that view of the matter the decision of the State refusing to renew the aforesaid lease a matter of fact and in law is based on non est grounds and is quashed as such. The respondent-Collector, Patna is directed to proceed with the renewal in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed.