to consider the said application on its own merits and as rightly stated by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State that same would be considered on its merits. 25. The High Court held that the appellant/State did not bring any material on record to show that there was any specific public purpose for which the land was required as provided under Rule 28 of the Bihar and Orissa Government Estate Manual, 1919 and as such resumption of land & determination of lease 23was bad. It is pertinent to note that the resumption case was initiated due to breach of conditions of the Manual of 2019 and the condition of the lease agreement and not on the ground that the land was required for any public purpose as contemplated under Rule 28(5) of the Manual of 2019. As such Rule 28 has no application to the present case on hand. 26. In view of the above findings, the impugned judgement of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. 27. During the