(1.) The petitioner prays for quashing of the direction, cancelling allotment of a plot of land earlier made in her favour, as contained in letter No. 1187/A, dated 3-6-1986 (Annexure-6) issued by the Manager Estate-cum-Additional Secretary of the Bihar State Housing Board.
(2.) It may be stated at the outset that there is no suggestion or hint in this letter that the order of cancellation of allotment was passed by some other superior officer and the Manager Estate was only communicating that decision to the petitioner through his letter. On the contrary, from the impugned letter it appears that the decision of cancellation of allotment was taken by the Manager Estate himself for the reasons stated in the letter.
(3.) In the impugned letter it is stated that the petitioner was allotted plot No. U-469, situate at Lohianagar Housing Colony, Patna as if the plot in question was one of the random left over ('chit put') plots. The plot in question, however, did not belong to that category and in the lay out plan it was left out as park. It was further stated that underground drainage passed through it. It was also alleged that the petitioner had made some constructions over the plot without obtaining prior approval of the Managing Director of the Board and thus in violation of Section 78 of the Bihar Housing Board Act. It was further stated that by an earlier letter No. 2214, dated 28-7-1984 issued by the Board's Executive Engineer the petitioner was directed to vacate her unauthorised occupation of the plot and to pay damages for her unauthorised occupation of the land failing which proceedings under Sections 83A and 59 would be initiated against her but the petitioner by her letter dated 10-8-1984 denied that she was in unauthorised occupation of the land and proceeded with the construction. It was further alleged that the constructions made by the petitioner were causing obstruction in the smooth flow of traffic on the adjoining roads. It was then repeated in that letter that underground sewage line and storm drainage line passed through that plot and the actions of the petitioner had been in contravention of Clauses 2 and 5 of the lease deed executed in her favour. The letter concluded by saying that the allotment of plot No. U-469 made earlier in her favour was accordingly cancelled.