MAHENDRA NARAYAN SARDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent No. 2. The Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), who are successor-in-interest of the Patna Improvement Trust to act according to its terms and forthwith allot the designated or alternatively another identical plot to the Petitioner.

(2.) In short, the case of the Petitioner is that the predecessor of the Respondent authority i.e. the Patna Improvement Trust was leased 198 acres of land to the east of Kadamkuan for developing a colony named 'Rajendra Nagar' under the Trusts Improvement scheme by carving out plots and settling the same for construction of buildings. The trust thereafter made developments and carved out plots for construction of buildings. The Patna Improvement Trust ceased to exist and the Respondent authorities was constituted in its place with effect from 24.5.1975 by virtue of the Bihar Regional Development Authorities Second Ordinance 1975. The Petitioner, who belongs to the weaker section of the society applied to the Respondent authority for allotment of one of such vacant plots for construction of residential house. By virtue of a registered deed of lease-cum-agreement dated 21.11.79 the Petitioner was allotted plot-A having an area of 2800 sq. ft. for a period of 66 years on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. A photostat copy of the said agreement has been annexed as Annexure 1. In consideration of. the said agreement the Petitioner was required to pay a premium of Rs. 7,416/- only half of which i.e. Rs. 3716/- was paid by the Petitioner in two instalments i.e. on 15.11.79 and 19.11.79 and the balance amount was to be paid in 16 monthly instalments of Rs. 78.32 p. with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum till final payment. The lease agreement was operative immediately and in pursuance of the same the Respondent-authority demised unto the lease the aforesaid plot. However, in spite of aforementioned deposit of the amount by the Petitioner and even though as per the terms of the lease the Petitioner was required to start construction of the building within one year of the execution of the lease and complete the same within three years from the date of commencement of such construction according to the sanctioned plan, the Respondent authority did not, in fact, give vacant possession of the plot in question which was under encroachment of unauthorised person to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, on various occasions approached the Respondent authority for delivery of vacant possession of the plot whenever he came to Patna in connection with professional purposes, as at that time he had to reside mostly at Delhi or at Saharsa. The Petitioner was always given assurances to give vacant possession of the said plot or in case of failure by the authority to deliver vacant possession of the said plot the authority would allot to him an alternative plot. But he was neither given possession of the designated plot nor allotted any alternative plot. The Petitioner filed several written representations also. The earliest was on 25.9.1980 and the last on 5.8.1992. A photo-stat copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 4 to the writ application. When however, the Petitioner learnt that the designated plot has been allotted recently to some other person, he filed the present writ application on 28th January, 1993.

(3.) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 on 27.4.92, in which the fact regarding execution of the deed of agreement is not disputed. However, it has been stated that the Petitioner had made application for allotment of plot on 13.10.79 before the authority wherein he had pleaded that the plot be allotted to him in anticipation of approval of the allotment by the Land Disposal Committee of the P.R.D.A. Thereafter, vide Authorities letter No. 483 dated 15.11.89 (corrected by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Authority as 15.11.79) the plot of land had been allotted to the Petitioner with a clear understanding that the said allotment was in anticipation of the approval of the Land Disposal Committee and the Board of the Authority. According to the Respondent allotment letter had clarified that allotment would be considered finally only after approval of the Board of the Authority.