PROFESSOR (DR.) RANJEET KUMAR MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING, GOVT. OF BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Senior Counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). Petitioner is aggrieved by letter No. 8814 dated 26.9.2011, Annexure-13 issued by the Manager Estate of the Board whereunder information has been given to the petitioner that allotment of plot No. 8M/33 in favour of late Renuka Devi as is evident from registered Hire Purchase Agreement was cancelled by State Government under letter No. 1219 dated 19.8.1994, wrongly mentioned in the impugned communication as 19.8.2004. Aforesaid communication is being assailed on the ground that Board having allotted the plot in question in favour of Renuka Devi entered into Hire Purchase Agreement dated 16.8.1991, Annexure-7 executed by and between the authorities of the Board and Smt. Renuka Devi. Once the agreement was executed and registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, the same could not have been cancelled under the orders of the Government contained in letter No. 1219 dated 19.8.1994, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit as having executed registered Hire Purchase Agreement the same could have been annulled by the competent authority of the Board or the Government for violation of the terms of Hire Purchase Agreement but from perusal of Government letter dated 19.8.1994, Annexure-A it does not appear that terms of Hire Purchase Agreement dated 16.8.1991 has been violated by Smt. Renuka Devi.

(2.) Counsel for the Board, however, defended the cancellation of the settlement/execution of the registered Hire Purchase Agreement with reference to the order dated 19.8.1994 passed with the approval of the Government on the ground that allotment itself was against the Rules and once the allotment was against the Rules the Government has the power to cancel the same. In this connection, learned senior counsel also referred to the notice issued by the authorities of the Board contained in letter No. 961 dated 4.4.1996, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit in the light of the Government order dated 19.8.1994, wrongly typed in the notice dated 4.4.1996 as letter No. 1219 dated 12.8.1994.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the Board having executed the Hire Purchase Agreement which was registered on 16.8.1991, the same could not have been cancelled on the ground that the allotment itself was illegal and contrary to Rules. In case, the Government and the Board were of the opinion that the settlement, registered agreement was itself contrary to the Rules of the Board it was for the Government and the Board to have sought necessary declaration from the competent civil court.