BRIGADIER RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner for construction of commercial complex over the land bearing Plot No. 310, Khata No. 218 situated at Doranda, Ranchi.

(2.) The petitioner claims himself to be the first defence personnel from Bihar who has been awarded the National Gallantry award of 'VIR CHAKRA' by the President of India for his bravery in Indo Pak War in 1971. It is stated that the Government of Bihar on appreciation of the act of bravery of the petitioner allotted 30 Dec. of land for construction of residence at Ranchi in the year 1979 (at Booty) for which a lease deed was registered, but possession could not be given to the petitioner due to non-removal of encroachment. Again, the State of Bihar leased out another piece of plot in Deepa Toli to the petitioner in the year 1982, but possession of the said land was not delivered because of illegal encroachment. Again in the year 1986 the Government of Bihar leased out a new piece of land in Doranda, bearing Plot No. 310, khata No. 218 having an area of 30 Dec. for which lease deed was executed on 6th October, 1986. After allotted of the said plot the petitioner had constructed his residential house and applied for making commercial construction over a portion of the said land. The petitioner's further case is that the Government has taken a policy decision that the leaseholders of the Khas Mahal lands can use the leased out land for commercial purposes, provided that the same is permissible in accordance with the master plan. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for permission for construction of commercial complex and the matter was placed for approval before the Cabinet, as would be apparent from the letter dated 7.2.1989 as contained in memo No. 471. The petitioner contended that since several representations were filed by the petitioner and recommendations were made by the authorities but the formal order regarding commercial use of the plot by the petitioner has not been granted as yet. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, have duly recommended the case of the petitioner. The Revenue Minister and the Revenue Secretary also recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission, but no permission has been granted. The petitioner further stated that because of the assurance given by the respondents, the petitioner submitted a plan and deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards the charges for passing the plan, and even plan has been passed by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the RRDA) for construction of commercial complex by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, made a grievance that in absence of such formal order, the petitioner is not in a position to start the construction of commercial complex and he is suffering a great financial loss. Lastly, the petitioner stated that even the chief Minister of the State while he was at Ranchi discussed the matter with the Chairman of the RRDA and directed him to grant permission, but nothing has been done till date.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it is stated that the application of the petitioner for conversion of residential land to a commercial land has been rejected by an Government and the same was communicated by the Additional Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue and Land Reforms vide memo No. 2641 dated 9.10.1996 copy of which has been annexed as annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It is further stated that the decision for conversion of Khas Mahal land for commercial purposes is taken on the merit of each case taking into consideration all the relevant facts. It is further stated that the petitioner as a matter of right cannot claim that his application for conversion of the land for commercial use of the plot must be allowed. Lastly, it is stated that the land was given to the petitioner for residential purpose which was accepted by him at that time and that the land was within the residential area and still considerable number of residences are there.