UMA SHYAM PARIVAR TRUST Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against a notice dated the 16th Feb., 1987, issued by the respondent No. 2 and as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to stop construction work on plot No. 169P, Sheet No. 9, Circle No. 6, Ward No. II, of the Patna Municipal Corporation.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner, who is the owner of the land in question, submitted a building plan for construction of a building thereon in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 6(3) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1975, hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Act".

(3.) On or about the 29th August, 1986, the Deputy Director of respondent No. 2 authority asked the petitioners to produce within seven days the original deed because the projected portion of the land was allegedly hanging on the Road. By the said letter, a clarification was sought for with regard to the position so far as the width of the road is concerned. The said letter dt. the 29th Aug., 1986, is contained in Annexure-15 to the writ application. The petitioner clarified the said position sought for in the aforementioned letter on the 20th September, 1936; the 23rd September. 1986; arid the 1st October, 1986, and also produced the original deed which fact was sought to be confirmed by the petitioners by their letter dated the 21st Nov., 1986 (Annexure-1). In the said letter, the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the authorities of respondent No. 2 were satisfied with the clarifications given try the petitioner on the aforesaid dates. The respondent No. 2, in its counter-affidavit, has contended that, on the 29th November, 1986, a letter was issued to the petitioners for inspection of the building on the 1st December, 1986. The petitioners, however, deny receipt of any such letter and further deny and dispute that any inspection was held pursuant thereto. However, it is admitted that a spot inspection was held on the 31st December, 1986, whereafter, according to the petitioners they were assured by the authority of the respondent No. 2 that there would be no objection to the sanctioning of the plan. The aforementioned statements lave been made in paras 7 and 8 of the writ application which have not been denied in the counter-affidavit.