RAJESH SINGH BUDDHPRIYA Vs. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 18-8-2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court inter alia pleading that the order is passed on misconception of law and misreading of the facts and as error is apparent on the face of the records, this Court must interfere and quash the orders.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute before me are, though the correctness of the agreement etc. referred to in the foregoing paragraphs of this order have been vehemently disputed, that the Respondent No. 3 alleging that he entered into an agreement with one Jayanti Lal for purchase of 18 dhoors land out of 2 kathas, 5 dhoors situate at Mithapur, Patna. As already said the genuineness of the said agreement, contained in Annexure-A to the counter filed by the Respondent No. 3, is highly disputed. On strength of the alleged agreement, on 30-4-1999 vide Annexure-B, the Respondent No. 3 issued a notice to said Jayanti Lal to perform the contract specifically, register the document and deliver the possession to the Respondent No. 3 after receiving the amount. On 10-5-1999 on strength of the said agreement, Respondent No. 3 filed Title Suit No. 177 of 1999 against the said Jayanti Lal. On 21-5-1999 the Sub Judge 1st, Patna directing the parties to maintain the status quo further directed that notices be issued to said vendor, Jayanti Lal. It appears that before the notices could be issued to said Jayanti Lal, a sale deed in relation to 2 kathas, 5 dhoors land was executed by Jayanti Lal in favour of the present petitioners at Bombay. On 27-5-1999 the notices were issued to Jayanti Lal. The petitioners allege that on 31-8-1999, their names were mutated in the official records. This fact is again highly disputed by the Respondent No. 3. On 15-10-1999 the petitioners applied to the Patna Regional Development Authority ('the PRDA' in short) for sanctioning the map to raise the constructions. On 18-8-2000 the map was sanctioned under the Sanction Order No. 632/99.

(3.) It is not in dispute before me that upto 18-8-2000 the present petitioners were not arrayed as defendants in Title Suit No. 177 of 1999. On 30-11-2000 in the said Title Suit, the present Respondent No. 3 made an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that the subsequent purchasers be joined as party-defendants. On 2-1-2001 the present petitioners were added as party-defendants in the said Title Suit. It is not in dispute before me that Respondent No. 3 made an application under S. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who by his order dated 5/6/9-2-2001 in case No. 737/M/2000 rejected the case of the Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-3. On 23-2-2001 the present Respondent No. 3 made an application to the Sub Judge in the said Title Suit to injunct the present petitioners from raising any constructions on the property in dispute. On 24-3-2001 notices in the said Title Suit were served upon the present petitioners. On 23-4-2001 vide annexure-1, the application filed by the present Respondent No. 3 was rejected by the Sub Judge on the grounds mentioned in the order specially in view of the undertaking given by the present petitioners that in case the suit is decreed in their favour, they would not claim any rights over the constructions raised by them or they would deliver the vacant and peaceful possession to the present Respondent No. 3. It is not in dispute that the order dated 23-4-2001 has been impugned in an Appeal and the said Appeal is pending consideration.