KUNAL HAZARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original petitioner, Dr. (Mrs) Iva Rani Hazari was the lessee of Khas Mahal lands measuring 6 Kathas 18 Dhurs 5 Dhurkies bearing Holding No. Nil, Circle No. 13, Plot No. 15, Ward No. 10, Block No. C, in Kadamkuan, Khas Mahal T No. 17023 P.S. Pirbahore, under a lease deed executed by the Collector of Patna in favour of her ancestor. She has been deceased during the pendency of this application and was substituted by the present petitioner, the legatee under her will.

(2.) THE writ petition was filed challenging the show cause notice dated 23.8.2001 issued by the Collector, Patna, questioning the construction by her of a multi -storeyed residential apartment styled 'Kanika Mehar Apartment' on the Khas Mahal lands leased to her for residential use, through a professional builder thus commercialising the lands, and the user contrary to the conditions of the lease. She was required to show cause why the lease be not cancelled for breach of the conditions of the lease. The writ petition also questioned the consequential orders dated 29.8.2001 and 19.9.2001 of the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the PRDA') directing her to immediately stop further construction unless and until the permission of the lessee/Collector was first obtained subject to which condition the building plan had been sanctioned by the PRDA.

(3.) NOTWITHSTANDING the conditional sanction of the plan by the PRDA subject to grant of permission by the Collector, and the directions of the PRDA dated 29.8.2001 and 19.9.2001 stopping further construction till approval of the Collector, the construction was made and finally completed during the pendency of the writ application under a legitimate expectation that formal approval was a mere formality and would follow automatically. There was therefore no need to seek any stay of the operation of the show cause notice or the directions of the PRDA to stop further construction, in the writ petition, before proceeding with such construction. The construction being residential in nature, based on a presumptive sanction, was not a commercialisation of the property. Approximately 20 flats had been built which had been sold to bona fide purchasers and therefore it was in the interest of justice because of the subsequent events that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed.