Lease agreement for a property in Orissa, initially granted in 1905 and renewed in 1944 for a period of 30 years. Following the expiration of the renewed lease in 1965, an application for renewal in 1972 was not adjudicated upon, leading to resumption proceedings initiated by the state in 1975 due to alleged lease violations. The lease determination by the Collector in 1975 was challenged by the legal heirs of the original lessee, resulting in a legal battle spanning trial, appellate, and High Court levels. The key contention revolved around whether the state's decision to determine the lease was justified due to breaches by the lessees or if due process was not followed. 

1. Argument of the Respondents: The respondents argued for the lease renewal based on provisions in the Bihar & Orissa Government Estates Manual, 1919, and specific clauses within the lease agreement.

2. Analysis of Relevant Clauses: Examination of Clause 20 of the Bihar & Orissa Government Estates Manual, 1919, and Clauses 15 and 16 of the lease agreement, highlighting conditions for renewal and consequences for breach.

3. Determination of Lease Due to Breaches: Findings indicated multiple breaches of lease terms by the lessees, justifying the state's decision not to renew the lease as per applicable clauses.

4. Dismissal of Precedent Relied Upon: Precedent cited by the respondents was dismissed due to clear breaches of lease conditions in the present case, leading to lease determination.

5. Delay in Seeking Renewal: Failure of the legal heirs to seek renewal within the stipulated timeframe weakened their case, as the late application was not adjudicated, leaving the matter open for state consideration.

6. Absence of Specific Public Purpose for Resumption: The High Court's judgment regarding the absence of evidence for a specific public purpose for land resumption was deemed irrelevant, as the resumption was based on breach of lease conditions, not public purpose.

7. Setting Aside of High Court's Judgment: Given the findings, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court's order was confirmed.

8. Direction for Consideration of Renewal Application: The pending renewal application was directed to be considered by the state within six months from the date of the order, granting the respondents the liberty to challenge the decision on the renewal application.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and the case was remanded for further consideration of the renewal application by the State.