JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Orissa against a reversing Judgment passed in T.S. No. 161/402 of 1990/ 1986 by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Puri in T.A. No. 2/100 of 1992/1991. The suit property was leased out on 26.09.1905 in favour of one Shailendranath Mitra for 30 years under a registered sale-deed. The same was a Khasmahal lease. During the subsistence of the lease, Shailendranath Mitra expired & the property was succeeded by his legal heirs Nalininath Mitra Jatindranath Mitra & Khagendra Mitra. In Mutation Case No. 410 of 1935-36 the property was mutated in favour of the above named legal heirs of late Shailendranath Mitra. On 22.01.1944, the lease was renewed & a fresh registered lease deed was executed by the Governor of Orissa represented through the Collector, Puri in favour of the said legal heirs as well as Gouribala Mitra, widow of one of the legal heirs. In 1965, there are being family dissentions, a partition suit bearing No. 1377 of 1967 was filed by Khagendra Mitra in the Calcutta High Court under its original jurisdiction in respect of the joint family properties including the present suit properties. A receiver was appointed to remain in-charge of the management & custody of the entire suit property. The receiver upon coming to know about the expiry of the lease applied to,the Khasmahal Authority (Collector, Puri) for renewal of the lease. However, no intimation was received by him & no action was taken thereon. Several correspondences were made between the Respondents & the Collector, Puri. The partition suit pending in the Calcutta High Court was disposed of & the present suit properties were exclusively allotted to the share of the Plaintiffs-Respondents. Upon disposal of the said suit the Plaintiffs approached the Khasmahal Authority for renewal the lease & filed number of petitions requesting for renewal. As nothing was done, on inquiry in the year 1983, they came to learn that a suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Collector for resumption of the lease, which was registered as Resumption Cast No. 6 of 1975, even though the renewal application filed earlier was numbered as Lease Renewal Case No. 11 of 1972. As nothing was done, on inquiry in the year 1983, they came to learn that a suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Collector for resumption of the lease, which was registered as Resumption Cast No. 6 of 1975, even though the renewal application filed earlier was numbered as Lease Renewal Case No. 11 of 1972. The Plaintiffs finding no other alternative filed the present suit, i.e., T.S. No. 402 of 1986 against the State of Orissa before the Munsif, Puri (now Civil Judge) which was renumbered as O.S. No. 161 of 1990. The Learned Trial Court upon hearing the suit after framing six issues dismissed the suit on contest on the ground that the Plaintiffs have not applied for renewal of the lease three months prior to expiry of the term & have violated the conditions of the lease. He further found that the Plaintiffs did not maintain the building. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Learned District Judge, Puri numbered as T.A. No. 100 of 1991. The appeal was heard by the Learned. Subordinate Judge, Puri being renumbered as T.A. No. 2/ 100 of 1992-91. The Learned Appellate Court after hearing the appeal set aside the Judgment & decree passed by the Learned Trial Court by reversing the said finding & decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs. The State of Orissa being aggrieved by the said Judgment of reversal has preferred the present second appeal. 2. The substantial question of law on which the appeal has been admitted is: Whether the period of lease having expired long since & not been renewed the impugned Judgment of the lower Appellate Court is at all sustainable in law & whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in holding that the Government cannot take possession of the land even though it has held earlier that the State can resume possession in accordance with law. 3. Before addressing the above question as framed to be determined in this second appeal, this Court feels it appropriate to refer to the lease deed, in question, which was exhibited before the Learned Trial Court as Ext. 4. The lease is a Khasmahal. lease nomenclatured as "Lease for Balukhand Khasmahal, Puri". The relevant Clauses-9 & 15 of the lease, which are necessary to be referred, read as follows: 9. 4. The lease is a Khasmahal. lease nomenclatured as "Lease for Balukhand Khasmahal, Puri". The relevant Clauses-9 & 15 of the lease, which are necessary to be referred, read as follows: 9. That the LESSEES shall make such sanitary improvement as may be ordered by the Collector. 15. That on breach or non-observance of any of the aforesaid terms or conditions, the Collector may declare that the lease has determined & become void, that an order of the Collector declaring that there has been such breach or non-observance shall be final & conclusive proof of such breach or non-observance as between the parties hereto & that on the expiry of one month from the date of such order the Collector or any Officer or person appointed in that behalf by the Collector shall be entitled to take possession of the land leased & the buildings erected thereon. PROVIDED that the Collector shall at the time of such declaration, either offer to pay reasonable compensation for the structures & other improvements made with the consent of the Collector or direct the LESSEES to remove the structures or other improvement within a specified time &, if the LESSEES fail to remove them accordingly, the Collector shall cause such removal to be effected & recover the cost from the LESSEES. Where compensation is offered, the amount of such compensation shall be fixed by the Collector whose decision shall be final, conclusive & binding on the LESSEES, subject to revision by the Revenue Commissioner. 4. It is the case of the Appellant that the lease was resumed on account of non-observance of the Clasue-9 of the lease-deed. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-State relying upon the decision in the case of Pabitra Kumar Swain v. State of Orissa and Ors. 84 (1997) C.L.T. 762 submits that this Court in the said case has laid down that cancellation of a lease does not amount to any breach of Fundamental Right & does not amount to any illegality or irregularity on the part of the State. The facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the said case, this Court was in seisin of a Writ Petition, where the Petitioner sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the order cancelling the Petitioner's lease of the Sand Source of Barimund Ghat in River Kuakhai. The facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the said case, this Court was in seisin of a Writ Petition, where the Petitioner sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the order cancelling the Petitioner's lease of the Sand Source of Barimund Ghat in River Kuakhai. The Collector, Khurda approved the sanction of lease of the said Sand Source in favour of the Petitioner therein subject to limitation of lifting of sand not exceeding 20,000 cubic meters for a period of two years on the basis of the report of the concerned Tahasildar & recommendation of the Sub-Collector. The Petitioner was intimated about the approval of the lease by the Collector & conditions of the said lease & was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 towards royalty & further amounts towards rent & security. Thereafter, the Petitioner executed the agreement & got the same registered. When the Petitioner-intended to deposit the remaining amount towards royalty to obtain the work order, he was served with a notice of cancellation of lease, which was challenged in the said Writ Petition.. This Court finding that the Collector on perusal of the case record & the report of the Sub-Collector cancelled the lease of the Sand Source/Ghat in view of danger to the river embankment at Patia did not interfere with such cancellation. 5. In the present case, however, the lease is a Khasmahal lease. Mr. G.K. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the intervenor/Respondent, submits that it has been repeatedly held by this Court that a leasehold estate in a Khasmahal land is heritable & transferable with a right of renewal. In the case of Republic of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal ILR 1976 (Cutt) 1392, this Court held that lease-hold estate in the Khasmahal land is heritable & transferable with a right of renewal. The right of lease in respect of such land is in no way different from that which one has in his own private land. The lessee's right in Khasmahal land being heritable & transferable, the lessee can create a permanent right of tenancy in his holding, 6. In the case of Shankarlal Verma and Others Vs. Smt. Uma Sahu and Others this Court had the occasion to deal with a Khasmahal lease property. The lessee's right in Khasmahal land being heritable & transferable, the lessee can create a permanent right of tenancy in his holding, 6. In the case of Shankarlal Verma and Others Vs. Smt. Uma Sahu and Others this Court had the occasion to deal with a Khasmahal lease property. Relying upon the decision in the case of Republic of India (Supra) & the case of Janab Jahada Begum Sahib v. State of Orissa 28 (1962) CLT 209, It was observed that law is well settled that interest of a lessee in a Khasmahal land is both heritable & transferable & his right is similar to those on a private land. His interest is regulated by the terms of lease between him & the Khasmahal authorities & the parties to the lease are governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. In the instant case, the lease was cancelled on the allegation that Clauses-9 of the lease deed was violated by the lessee. However, nothing was brought before this Court that there were materials before the Collector to come to the conclusion that the said clause has been violated. It is an admitted position that the Lease Renewal Case No. 11 of. 1972 was initiated for renewal of the lease during pendency of which the Resumption Proceeding No. 6 of 1975 was suo motu registered by the Collector & no notice of the said resumption case was served on the Respondent before passing the final order, which action was questioned in the suit. The Khasmahal lease was a registered lease. Applying the ratio of the aforementioned case laws, there can be no dispute that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are applicable to a Khasmahal lease & the property in a Khasmahal lease shall be treated to be akin to a private land of the lessee, which is both heritable & transferable. Though Clause-15 of the lease deed, as quoted above, provides the modalities for determination of lease by the Collector, the State, as Defendant, has brought no materials before the Trial Court to show that such determination of lease made by the Collector was in accordance with Clause-15 of the lease deed. In the case of Sourindra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa and Ors. In the case of Sourindra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa and Ors. 2004 (II) OLR 332 , this Court was considering the legality of determination of a Khasmahal lease in a resumption proceeding. The facts of the said case are similar to the present case. Referring Sub-rule (5) of Rule 28 of Bihar & Orissa Government Estates Manual, 1919 & the earlier decisions of this Court, it was held that Clause-18 of the lease deed provides that on expiry of lease the lesser shall, if the lessee has duly observed & performed all the conditions of the lease, be bound at the option of the lessee to renew the lease for a further period of 30 years. In other words, the option of renewal has been left with the lessee & not with the Khasmahal authorities. Since material has been brought before the Court that such a renewal application was pending, the said application could not have been rejected otherwise than finding that the lessee has not duly observed & performed all the conditions of the lease. The State has not brought any material to show that there was any specific public purpose for which the aforesaid land was required as provided in Rule 28 of the Bihar & Orissa Government Estate, Manual, 1919. The power of presumption provided to the Khasmahal authority is under the said Rule 28, which can only be exercised if the land is required for public purpose. Such a case has not been made out by the Appellant-Defendant. It is, therefore, clear from the facts of the case & the materials produced before the Learned Trial Court that the unilateral resumption of the lease which was granted in favour of the Plaintiffs/their predecessors, cannot be sustained when the lessor has not approached the common law forum for determination of the lease by declaring the lease to be void or for eviction of the lessees on the ground of violation of any of the terms of the lease. Even where there is violation of the conditions of the lease, which entails resumption of the lease & reentry by the lessor, such action cannot be unilaterally taken by the lessor without taking recourse of law for evicting the lessee. 7. Even where there is violation of the conditions of the lease, which entails resumption of the lease & reentry by the lessor, such action cannot be unilaterally taken by the lessor without taking recourse of law for evicting the lessee. 7. Learned Lower Appellate Court, therefore, has rightly reversed the Judgment & decree of the Learned Trial Court & decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs. The question of law framed in this appeal should, therefore, be answered in the affirmative. 8. In the result, the Second Appeal fails & the Judgment & decree of the lower Appellate Court is confirmed. Parties shall bear their respective costs of this Second Appeal. Final Result : Dismissed