SHAYAMRISHISINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In the present writ application, the grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 29-7-1982, passed by the Vice Chairman of the Patna Regional Development Authority in case No. 294/82 in exercise of the powers under section 54 (1) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to us 'the Act') is ultra vires the aforesaid provisions inasmuch as the petitioner, who claims to be the real owner was never given any notice in regard to the said proceeding. Yet the impugned order has been passed directing demolition of the building in question.

(2.) In short, the case of the petitioner is that initially one Ramgati Singh of village Shekhpura was recorded tenant of plot No. 1004, Khata No. 208, Tauzi No. 5767 having an area of 71.5 decimals of land. After the death of said Ramgati Singh in the year 1963 a Khangi partition took place in the family constituting Rajmani Singh (respondent No 4) and Ras Bihari Singh, father of the petitioner and the portion of the land, which remained after acquisition of 69 decimals of land by the State of Bihar came in the share of the father along with other co-sharers of the property. It is claimed that in the Patna Municipal Corporation also the name of the petitioner who is the owner, is recorded as the tax-payer. In support of the said claim, the petitioner has filed photostat copies of the receipts granted by the Patna Municipal Corporation as annexures 1 and 1/1.

(3.) Mr Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Act provides that no order of demolition of building shall be made unless the owner or the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the order should not be made. According to the learned Counsel, in the present case notice was given to the said Rajmani Singh who was neither owner, nor can even be called to be the person concerned as the petitioner is the owner and also recorded as the tax-payer in the record of the Municipal Corporation. Thus, according to him, the petitioner was entitled for reasonable opportunity to show cause before the order of demolition was passed.