AMAR PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions have been filed with regard to a dispute for settlement of a bus stand within the territorial area of Rosera Municipality. Petitioner Amar Pratap Singh (CWJC No. 492 of 1997) has moved against the order dated 15.12.1996 (Annexure-9) communicated under the signature of Respondent Sub-Divisional officer, whereby and where under the Collector has restrained him from operating the bus stand. Other writ petition is on behalf of Petitioner Kamleshwari Prasad Singh (CWJC No. 12635 of 1996), who is Respondent No. 8 in the first writ petition, praying to quash the order of the Special Officer of the Municipality dated 27.11.1996, whereby and where under the bus stand was settled with Petitioner Amar Pratap Singh. Since facts of both the cases are common therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are disposed of by this order.

(2.) Common case of Petitioner Amar Pratap Singh and Respondent Municipality is that after getting approval of the District Magistrate, vide his letter dated 6.11.1996 (Annexure 2) and the Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, vide letter dated 20.11.1996 (Annexure-3); steps were taken to establish the bus stand at Rosera under the control of the Municipality. Since the Municipality had no land of its own to run a bus stand, therefore, with the consent of the District Magistrate, one bigha of land appertaining to khata No. 421, plot No. 1079, 1080, 1084 and 1085 was obtained on lease agreement from the land owner. Thereafter, on 24.11.1996, by the order of the Special Officer, notice was published in a local news paper (Annexure 5) for settling the bus stand through open auction. Accordingly, on the Scheduled day, the bid was finally closed at Rs. 1,25,000/- in favor of Petitioner Amar Pratap Singh, who was the higher bidder. Thereupon all the necessary formalities like deposit of money, execution of agreement, issuance parwana etc. were completed well within time. But in the meantime, due to certain disturbances, created at the instance of Respondent No. 8 Kamleshwari Prasad Singh, who was running a private bus stand, the District Magistrate in order to maintain law and order and to enquire into the dispute, restrained the Petitioner from operating the new bus stand until further orders.

(3.) The case of Respondent No. 8 Kamleshwari Prasad, in short, is since he was already operating Anr. bus stand with effect from 1987, after getting necessary approval of the District Magistrate, and Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called the Transport Authority), the Special Officer had no jurisdiction to settle Anr. bus stand with the Petitioner Amar Pratap Singh without approval of the said Authority. It has been further stated that after having learnt that the settlement in question has been made on a meager amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, this Respondent approached the special officer and offered to pay two lacs but the same was refused. He also pointed out that a title suit as well as a proceeding under Section 48 of the B.T. Act have already been started before the courts below with regard to the land which has been settled with Petitioner Amar Pratap Singh.