RAMDEO PRASAD SON OF LATE RAMDAS PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for Patna Regional Development Authority, now merged with Patna Municipal Corporation.

(2.) FROM the order under appeal it is clear that this case had a chequered history. From the order of the writ court, dated 6.9.1999 which is Annexure -14 to the writ petition, it transpires that one Most. Jira Devi had claimed a right to be allotted a land/flat in Rajendra Nagar locality on the ground that her land had been acquired for development of Rajendra Nagar Housing Scheme. The said housing scheme was initiated when Patna Improvement Trust was in existence and the land for that scheme was acquired around the year 1960. The petitioner claims that his mother Most. Basumati Devi had applied for the first time on 17.12.1969 to the Patna Improvement Trust for allotment of a housing plot as a displaced person whose land had been acquired for the housing scheme. Subsequently, on death of Most. Basumati Devi one Most. Jira Devi claimed to be daughter and only legal heir entitled for preferential allotment of land as an heir of Most. Basumati Devi. At her instance the order, dated 6.9.1999 contained in Annexure -14 to the writ petition was passed. That order shows that as per direction of the writ court, a flat in Rajendra Nagar locality was offered to the writ petitioner and that offer was accepted in principle. However, while disposing of the writ petition, the writ court observed that though offer of the flat is accepted by the petitioner, liberty is given to file a representation without prejudice for allotment of plot at Rajendra Nagar. Such representation if made before the authorities of the Patna Regional Development Authority, which was the successor body in place of the Patna Improvement Trust, was to be considered after examining whether there is any vacant plot available for allotment. If vacant plot was located, then such claim was to be considered in accordance with law and on the basis of priority claim. The representation of the petitioner who had already been substituted in C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of 1992 in place of Most. Jira Devi was considered by the Patna Regional Development Authority and rejected by order, dated 6.5.2003 which is Annexure -18 to the wit petition. That order expressed some reservations regarding the claim of the petitioner that he is son of Basumati Devi and brother of Jira Devi and it further noted that a Power of Attorney had been created by Jira Devi in favour of the petitioner but that will have no effect after the death of Jira Devi.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 2196 of 2000 and in that proceeding he also challenged on merits the order, dated 6.5.2003 of the Patna Regional Development Authority. At the instance of the court. Patna Regional Development Authority passed another order on the petitioner 'srepresentation on 1.11.2003 which is Annexure -19 to the writ petition. The validity of those orders of Patna Regional Development Authority contained in Annexures -18 and 19 were gone into on merits in the contempt proceeding only at the instance of the petitioner. This is evident from the final order passed in the contempt case, dated 12.11.2003, Annexure -20 to the writ petition. That order found that the petitioner as an applicant for land had to satisfy the requirement of Rule 17 of the Disposal of Land Rules, 1978. The court also found that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirement of that rule and hence the Patna Regional Development Authority was not at fault in refusing to allot a plot of land to the petitioner.