RAMDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking quashing of the orders dated 6.5.2003 as well as 11.1.2003 contained in Annexures -18 and 19 by virtue of which the respondents Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as PRDA) has rejected his claim for allotment of a plot of land in Rajendra Nagar area under the displaced person category. The respondents by the above two impugned orders have refused the demand of the petitioner in this regard. The reasons indicated therein are being seriously assailed in the present writ application. It is a long litigation which the petitioner has been carrying on against the respondents and therefore some factual aspects are being taken note of. Petitioner's father late Ram Das Pandit owned a piece and parcel of land which was acquired by then Patna Improvement Trust. In terms of the policy existing at the relevant time, all such persons whose lands were acquired were entitled to allotment of a piece and parcel of land for building their own residence. Somewhere in the year, 1973 mother of the petitioner filed an application alongwith the prescribed deposit in terms of an advertisement called by the then Patna Improvement Trust. Petitioner's mother thereafter pursued the matter before various forum but except for assurance and excuses no decision in this regard was taken. The Patna Improvement Trust thereafter got replaced by Patna Regional Development Authority (in short PRDA). The matter therefore came within the ambit of consideration of PRDA. In the year, 1980 mother of the petitioner passed away and the daughter of Basumati Devi namely, Jeera Devi thereafter started pursuing the matter. She even filed a writ application in the year, 1992 which was CWJC No. 2262 of 1992. In the said writ application itself for the reasons indicated the present petitioner, namely, Ram Das Prasad was substituted as a legal heir. The matter got finally heard and the writ application was disposed of vide order dated 6.9.1999. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held in favour of the petitioner on the stand taken by the respondents (PRDA) that petitioner shall be offered a flat in lieu of the land and it was open to the petitioner to accept the said offer. But it seems from the order that the right of the petitioner to claim a piece and parcel of land at Rajendra Nagar area was not extinguished. It was left open to the petitioner to pursue his matter.

(2.) WHEN nothing came out of the order and direction of the Court passed in CWJC No. 2262 of 1992 a contempt application was filed. The contempt order dated 10th November, 2003 is annexed as Annexure -20 to the writ application. It seems that the contempt application was heard as a writ application virtually on the basis of the parties agreeing to the same and the Court went into the merit of the claim itself. It is a very detailed order running into many, a paragraphs and pages. The Court held against the petitioner after taking note of various provisions under the Act and Rules. Rule, 17 of the PRDA (Disposal of Land) Rules 1978 was the primary rule on which the claim of the petitioner was tested. The Court noted that the claim for a piece and parcel of land for residential purpose was permissible only when if the person or his dependent did not own residence of his own at Patna or did not own or have a share in any land in Patna suitable for construction of a residential house. It seems and it is not in dispute that the petitioner does own a residential house of his own in Kankarbagh Colony at Patna. The Court in its wisdom therefore with its detailed reasoning dismissed the contempt also on merit.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the reasoning given by the respondents in the impugned order dated 6.5.2003 Annexure -18 is erroneous on the face of it. In this order the then Vice -Chairman of the PRDA held that the petitioner had no locus in view of the fact that it was Jeera Devi who was pursuing her claim and the claim lodged by Jeera Devi came to an end on her death. It was to dispel this reasoning that the Court's attention was drawn to the order dated 22.10.97 passed in CWJC No. 2262 of 1992 which is Annexure -12 to the writ application where the petitioner was substituted as a legal heir in the writ application and a final order in this regard in his favour came to be passed in terms of Annexure -14. Even misdescription of the name of the parties made in the order dated 6.9.1999 of Annexure -14 stood corrected vide order dated 1.11.1999 contained in Annexure -17.