BIHAR VETERINARY ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be the part owner of certain lands. He submits that in 2003 he had Instituted a partition suit as against respondent No. 3 and others, After the suit was instituted respondent No. 3 entered into an agreement with respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Builder ') and pursuant thereto an application was filed before the Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) for sanction of plan for a multi storey building thereon, PRDA treating respondent No. 3 and others to be the owners, sanctioned the plan. Subsequently, in 2004 an injunction application was filed in the said partition suit by the petitioner. In the said injunction application, petitioner had prayed for maintaining status quo for restraining respondent No. 3 and others from alienating the property or changing the physical feature of the property. It appears that he also filed an application before PRDA saying that the sanction of the plan was obtained by fraud and as such the sanction must be recalled. PRDA temporarily stopped the construction, which had also begun pursuant to sanction granted. It is not in dispute that PRDA noticed the owner/ developer and after hearing the petitioner and others refused to interfere noticing that the parties were in dispute in civil Court but no injunction had been granted.

(2.) IT is now virtually this decision of the PRDA which is in challenge. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court by order dated 3.07.2007 respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have appeared and filed counter affidavits and interlocutory application for vacating the exparte interim order passed on that date.

(3.) ONE very important aspect of the matter was brought on record i.e. the final order in the matter of injunction, as sought for by the petitioner in the said partition suit. By order dated 7.06.2007 the trial Court finally disposed of the injunction matter refusing to grant injunction, As indicated above, injunction application was filed in 2004 even before PRDA had sanctioned the plan, By injunction they had sought to restrain the respondent No. 3 from creating third party interest, transferring or alienating the property or incumbering the property in any manner. This prayer after due contest was rejected by a Court of competent jurisdiction, though the interest of the petitioner was preserved, dependent on the final result of the suit. It has been asserted that this fact was known to the petitioner that he had lost the injunction matter on 7.06.2007 but while arguing the matter for admission on 3.07.2007 and praying for an interim relief before this Court, this matter was not brought to the notice of the Court and thereby material facts were concealed and an interim order obtained. Bihar Veterinary Association Versus State Of Bihar