MD. SHAUKAT HAYAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cancellation of allotment of five quarters constructed at Gaiwalbigha by Gaya Regional Development Authority and their re -allotment to the private respondents without considering their case and ignoring the fact that they are in occupation of the said quarters as tenants for a long period of time. They also want quashing, if not cancellation, of the allotment letters issued in favour of the respondents. Way back in the year 1960 -61 the then Gaya Improvement Trust in a slum clearance programme constructed some low income group houses. The same were allotted to persons on the terms fixed by the Trust authorities. These allotments were made somewhere in 1974. But it seems that the original allottees did not become the actual occupiers. They inducted certain persons as tenants without due knowledge and information or permission of Gaya Improvement Trust. The present petitioners are such inductees. The arrangement, it seems, continued for quite a while till the matter came to the knowledge of the Regional Development authorities, the successor -in -interest of Gaya Improvement Trust. The authorities therefore vide order dated 7.3.2000 cancelled the allotment of the original allottees. Cancellation orders have been brought on record as Annexure -2 series. The petitioners state that this cancellation order was not within their knowledge. There was no information to them and so far as they are concerned they continued to pay rent to the original allottees. Subsequently when the petitioners learnt of such a decision of the respondents they made applications to the Vice -Chairman for consideration of their cases for allotment in the given back ground. It seems that by a decision dated 13.5.2000 contained in Annexure -4 the respondents in principle agreed to consider their cases. Petitioners became sanguine that a decision in their favour would be taken but then they got rattled when the police from Rampur Police Station came and asked them to vacate the premises. On enquiry they found out that the private respondents have been allotted the flats and they have been denied allotment by the respondents. It is in this background that they decided to file the present writ application and seek a direction upon the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONERS claim that there is a violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 find 21 of the Constitution. They have equity in their favour to demand such a settlement and that the decision taken by the respondents is neither fair nor just.

(3.) THE private respondents have also supported the decision made by the Regional Development Authority. They have brought evidence on record to show that after due deliberations and on their applications a decision in their favour has been taken. They have already executed all the documents and paid the price demanded by the respondents. Now they have a valid, legal right, title and interest to claim possession of this property. They also submit that merely because the petitioners have been in illegal occupancy of the flats it does not give them right to claim ownership now. The present application is only a ploy to deny the legitimate right created in their favour by the Regional Development Authority.