BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director challenging inter alia the validity of the order passed in a proceeding under section 59 of the Act. The said order is dated. 25.2.1986 passed in Case No. 66/82/21/83 as the application of the petitioner for eviction of respondent no. 4 from the plot in question was not granted by the competent authority in proceeding u/s. 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), an appeal was filed u/s. 60 of the said -Act, by the petitioner. The appellate authority ageeing with the findings of the competent authority dismissed the appeal with certain directions. Both these orders have been impugned as Annexures - 2 and 3 to this writ petition by the petitioner Board.

(2.) BEFORE considering the legality of those orders, the admitted facts of the case, as it appears from the petition filed by the Housing Board, are noted below : - The dispute arises out of plot no. 326, khata no. 85 area measuring about 209.10 sq. mtrs. situated at Bahadurpur, Section -I at present under the occupation of respondent no. 4. The facts as alleged in the writ petition is that plot no. 326 and some other plots, consisting of an area of 227.78 acres of land in village Bahadurpur, Thana no. 10. Thana -Patna City, was acquired by the petitioner -Board for the purpose of developing M.I.G. plots in sector - 1, II and IV of Bahadurpur.

(3.) THE case of respondent no. 4 is that in respect to the said plot there is an agreement of sale which was executed on 21st May, 1969 and on the basis of the said agreement of sale, possession was handed over to respondent no. 4 in the year, 1970. It is stated that the respondent no. 4 has constructed a house on the said plot of land in 1974. It is also the case of the respondent no. 4 that no notice was ever given to him in the said acquisition proceeding even though he is in possession of the plot in question since 1970, which is prior to initiation of such proceeding. As such it cannot be said that respondent no. 4 is in an unauthorised occupation. On these facts, the writ petition was filed complaining of Annexures -2 and 3 as stated above.