KAPIL RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, respondent Housing Board and respondent no.6 Kedar Ram.

(2.) THE dispute in this writ petition relates to allotment of a one -room tenement (loosely called 'house ') out of 616 such tenements constructed by the State Government under the 'Home for Homeless ' Scheme. It appears from the submissions made at the Bar that after the building was constructed the tenements came to be occupied by unauthorised persons. The petitioner also in like manner occupied the tenement in question (described as house no. 207 in different orders annexed to the writ petition). As his occupation was unauthorised, complaint was made before the competent authority by respondent no.6 Kedar Ram who had, in the meantime, been allotted the house. By order dated 14.9.94 the competent authority directed eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid house. The petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government. The Deputy Secretary, Building Construction and Housing Department exercising the delegated power of the State Government dismissed the appeal on 26.5.97. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said two orders.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the petitioner had no legal right to claim allotment of a particular 'house '. The eviction from the 'house ' in question pursuant to the order Of the competent authority, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal. At the same time it appears from the letter of the Additional Collector, Patna dated 8.3.94 that his case for allotment had been recommended by the Collector, Patna. From the decision of the Housing Board taken in the 96th meeting on 20.11.84 it appears that the 'houses ' were to be allotted on the recommendation of the Collector, Patna. It further appears from the said decision that out of 616 houses constructed under the aforesaid scheme only 376 houses had been allotted out of which also, possession had been delivered to only 264 allottees. These figures obviously reveal the state of affairs existing at the time of the decision, i.e. in the month of November, 1984. In course of hearing it was stated that 17 such 'houses ' are still vacant against which the petitioner 's case may be considered.