SATULA DEVI Vs. THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ applications raise common question of Patna High Court CWJC No.22948 of 2011 dt.29 -01 -2016 fact and law, inasmuch as, the impugned order is the same. With the consent of the parties they have been heard together. The present order will govern them.

(2.) Relevant background facts for the purpose of disposal of the case shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No. 22948 of 2011 which was argued first.

(3.) The writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions the pregnability of the order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure -8) issued by the respondent Estate Officer, Bihar State Housing Board (for short 'the Board') cancelling the allotment of plot No. 6H/23 allotted to the petitioner in Bahadurpur Housing Colony (for short 'the Housing Colony') in the township of Patna. The order was purportedly issued in the light of an order dated 2nd September, 2008 (Annexure -9), passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation vide C.W.J.C. No. 12376 of 2007. The petitioner was an applicant for allotment of a residential plot in the Housing Colony which was allotted to him on 30.07.1981. The Hire Purchase Agreement (Annexure -2) was entered between the respondent Board and the petitioner on 23.01.1982. He was handed over the plot on 23.05.1988. For the reasons disclosed in the order the land allotted to the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent Board which was challenged by him in C.W.J.C. No. 86 of 1986. During Patna High Court CWJC No.22948 of 2011 dt.29 -01 -2016 pendency of the writ application the Board is stated to have resolved not to disturb the allotment of the petitioner inasmuch as a communication was issued in this context on 16.06.1990 whereafter the writ petition was withdrawn (Annexure -4). It is averred that the Board directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3886/ - on 13.05.1992 which was paid by demand draft. In the meantime, the petitioner claims to have constructed a two -bedroom house on the plot. Despite the final payment made, the respondent Board did not execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner. All of a sudden the impugned communication dated 11.11.2011 was issued by respondent no. 3 cancelling the allotment of Plot No. 6H/23. No notice was earlier issued to the petitioner before passing such order.