SAROJ SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26th of July, 1982 Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter called "P.R.D.A.") granted sanction to a pian for construction of Surya Apartment. In February, 1984 the Vice -Chairman, P.R.D.A. directed stop construction of Surya Apartment. On 31st July, 1984. it transpired that there is an allegation that Surya Apartment is being constructed on the land which does not belong to the person who applied for sanction for construction of that Apartment. The matter was enquired upon and it transpired that about 1848 sq. ft. of land belonging to Patna Municipal Corporation has been allegedly encroached upon for constructing Surya Apartment. No one tried at any stage to look into the title of the person who was accorded permission to construct or to the title of Patna Municipal Corporation pertaining to that 1848 sq. ft. of the land. The matter was then brought to the notice of the Government who on 29th September, 1984 resolved the matter by directing payment of compensation at market rate to Patna Municipal Corporation. At that stage it was also decided by the Government that if any minor deviation has been made condonation fee payable to P.R.D.A. be paid. This decision was also taken by the Government on 29th September, 1984. Thereafter the Chief Engineer, P.R.D.A. prepared a report and submit the same to the Government. In that report it was held out that no construction can be made on the land belonging to Patna Municipal Corporation and that the other set backs as made are within the permissible limit of 5% except the front set back. This report is dated 5th December, 1984. In the report it was suggested that condonation fee of Rs. 67,100/ - be recovered from the owners of Surya Apartment by P.R.D.A. and the owners of Surya Apartment be permitted to construct the Apartment on the remaining part of the land, but not the set back as proposed to be made in the front. The report suggested that by that time fifth floor of Surya Apartment had been constructed. Subsequent thereto on 10th January, 1985 the Standing Committee of Patna Municipal Corporation assessed a sum of Rs. 2,08,625/ - as compensation pertaining to the said 1848 sq. ft. of land on which Surya Apartment was being constructed. These two decisions one of P.R.D.A. contained in the said report and other emanating from the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the Patna Municipal Corporation were brought to the notice of the Government; whereupon the Government by an order dated 15th January, 1935 approved the claim of Patna Municipal Corporation to the tune of Rs. 2,08,625/ - and also the condonation fee, as was claimed by P.R.D.A., to the tune of Rs. 67,100/ -, but interfered with the decision of the Chief Engineer not to allow the front set back. The owner of Surya Apartment thereafter on 22nd January, 1985. paid Rs. 67,100/ - to P.R.D.A. as condonation fee and thereafter on 16th October, 1985 paid Rs. 2,08,625/ - to Patna Municipal Corporation and thereupon proceeded to make further construction in terms of the order of the Government dated 15th January, 1985. Subsequent thereto on 28th January, 1986 P.R.D.A. by a letter held out to the owner of the Surya Apartment that the Government has cancelled the decision dated 29th September, 1984 followed by the decision dated 15th January, 1985 and accordingly the owner of Surya Apartment shall not handover the flats to the allottees. This letter was followed by yet another letter dated 2nd July, 1986 whereby and whereunder P.R.D.A. proposed to refund Rs. 67,100/ - paid by the owner of Surya Apartment as condonation fee, principally on the ground that the said amount was deposited by the owner of Surya Apartment on their own volition and not on the direction of P.R.D.A.

(2.) THE owners of Surya Apartment then filed the writ petition challenging the decisions as conveyed by P.R.D.A. in its letters dated 28th June, 1986 and 2nd July, 1986. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground of suppression. The writ court fell that the writ petitioner was seeking to deceive the court by keeping secret material facts known to the writ petitioner.

(3.) THE Government was present before the writ court, it did not urge that the Government has cancelled its decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and dated 15th January, 1985. The Government is present before us. Even before us the Government did not urge that the Government has decided to cancel its decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and 15th January, 1985.