ANIL KUMAR SINHA Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Anil Kumar Sinha, a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the Indian Army (since deceased) was the original allotee of M.I.G. House No. 237 situate at Lohianagar, Kankarbagh colony, Patna, constructed by the Bihar State Housing Board ( 'the Board ', hereinafter). The allotment made in favour of Sinha was proper and valid and on his making payment(s) in accordance with the Board 's 'demand(s), a registered hire purchase agreement concerning the house was also executed in his favour by the Board. However, the Board had been unable to give him possession of the house. This was because the house came in unauthorised occupation of one Dhirendra Kumar, respondent no .5, a practising lawyer who, according to the Board, had forcibly entered into the house. While the Board 's efforts to have respondent no. 5 evicted was yet to yield result, the Government strangely asked the Board to allot that house to respondent no. 5. The Board meekly followed the Government's direction. It allotted the house to respondent no.5 and cancelled its earlier allotment made in favour of Sinha quite unmindfully that its contract with Sinha was concluded by a registered agreement of hire purchase and that contract could be avoided only in terms of that agreement and not by any unilateral action on its part, the Board being one of the contracting parties. The occupation of the house by respondent no.5 which had its origin in the breaking of the law was thus sought to legitimised, at the instance of the Government, in complete disregard of the rights of Sinha. On the basis of that allotment, which was not followed by any agreement, or any conveyance of title, respondent no.5 continues to be in occupation of the house committing breach with complete nonchalance, of several material terms and conditions of the allotment order, apart from the undertaking given to this court. In the meanwhile, seeking relief before this Court Sinha died one more victim of the delay in the judicial process. And now it is his heirs who pursue this case and seek the relief originally sought by Sinha.

(2.) THIS is the sum and substance of this case. Now to state these facts in greater detail.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in this case on -behalf of the Board it is plainly stated that the allotment of the house in favour of Sinha was proper and valid and he had made payment of all the demands made by the Board in accordance with the rules.