GAUTAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

(2.) The petitioner after purchasing certain properties made an application on 8-3-2000 in accordance with Section 186 of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 giving a notice to the municipality that he proposes to raise construction in accordance with the map and the plan. As any objection or rejection was not communicated to the petitioner, presuming a deemed sanction under the provisions of Section 188(3) of the Act the petitioner started raising construction. After the petitioner raised construction the authorities came out of slumber and started raising objections, one such objection communicated to the petitioner is contained in Annexure-3 letter No. 384 dated 8-5-2000. The petitioner was informed that without getting the map/plans sanctioned he was raising construction and alongwith his map he did not submit the application for mutation and the document which he had annexed with his application/ notice was a receipt issued by the Circle Officer in favour of the seller. The petitioner was required to stop the construction immediately. On 22-5-2000 vide Annexure-3-A the Special Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality issued a notice to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Lakhisarai that despite notices to the petitioner he was not staying the construction, therefore, proper action be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner taking an exception to Annexure-3 submitted a representation on 14-9-2000 raising certain plea that as his map was not rejected within a period of one month the map was deemed to be sanctioned and he was justified in raising construction.

(3.) It appears that despite representation nothing was done in favour of the petitioner therefore, he was required to come to this Court.