HARI NARAIN SINGH Vs. PATNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus to issue against respondent No. 1, the Patna Improvement Trust (hereinafter to be referred to as the Trust) commanding it to consider the petitioner's application for settlement of one of the plots in favour of the petitioner, after quashing the settlement of a plot of land made by respondent No. 1 in favour of Ramesh Prasad, respondent No. 2.

(2.) When this application was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment of the case on the ground that an application for substitution of the Trust, which was originally respondent No. 1 to the writ application, by the Patna Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as the Authority), which is its successor-in-interest, would be made. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of this writ application the Trust was superseded and the said Authority was constituted in its place. Mr. Yadunath Saran Singh, who initially appeared on behalf of the Trust, conveyed to us that he was also representing the Authority and he would be filing appearance on its behalf later--by Tuesday next. In that view of the matter, it was not thought necessary to issue any notice to the Authority for its addition as a party respondent. The Authority being represented toe-fore us, we treated it as respondent No. 3 to this writ application and proceeded to hear the arguments on merits.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this application are short and simple. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are both members of the legal profession in Patna. None of them has any residential house of his own or any land in Patna. Respondent No. 1 had been constituted as a local authority by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 (Bihar Act 35 of 1951) --hereinafter to be referred to as the Act--for the improvement and development of, and for providing residential facilities in, Patna for the benefit of residents. The Trust was also responsible for settlement of plots of land and houses for the people of various income groups. One such colony is situate at Shrikrishnapuri where respondent No. 1 developed some plots for settling them to the applicants of lower income group. Applications were invited for settlement of these plots in the month of September, 1971 at the rate of Rs. 3,100 per katha. The petitioner submitted his application for settlement of plot No. 122-E in his favour complying with all the formalities required under the law. Respondent No. 1 received near about 1,000 applications and in respect of plot No. 122-E herein before mentioned there were more than two applications including those of petitioner and respondent No. 2. The aforesaid plot was ultimately settled by the Trust in favour of respondent No. 2. When the petitioner came to know that that plot had ,'been settled in favour of respondent No. 2 and that no auction had been held between the different competitors for the same plot, this application was filed challenging the settlement made by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2. The main ground of attack against the settlement made and the obvious rejection of the petitioner's application for settlement is that no competitive auction was held as is required by law.