Patna High Court
Birendra Mohan Singh vs The Patna Municipal Corporation on 11 April, 2019
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19762 of 2014
======================================================
1(a) Smt. Kunti Singh Wife of late Birendra Mohan Singh Resident of
Mohalla- Rejendra Nagar, Road No. 1, P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna-16
1(b) Mrs. Pushpa Chauhan W/o Mr. S.S. Sinha, D/o Late Birendra Mohan
Singh At Present resident of Mohalla- Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 1,
P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna-16
1(c) Mrs. Rekha Chauhan W/o Dr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, D/o late
Birendra Mohan Singh At Present residing at Mohalla- Pipe Factory
Road, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, P.S, Kankarabagh, Patna-26
1(d) Mrs. Sunita Chauhan, W/o Mr. Bishwamohan Kumar Singh, D/o Late
Birendra Mohan Singh Presently resident of Mohalla- A-01, Reserve
Bank of India Colony, D, Block Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi- 110057
1(e) Mrs. Anita Singh W/o Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, D/o late Birendra
Mohan Singh Presently residing at Mohalla-B 802, Mont Vert
Attesse, Pashan Sus Road , Behind Union Bank of India, Pashan
Pune- 411021 Maharashtra.
1(f) Mrs. Priti Singh W/o Mr. Sanjay Singh, D/o Birendra Mohan Singh
Presently resident of Mohalla- 1404, Satpura Towers, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
1(g) Dr. Archana Shahi W/o Dr. Sanjay Shahi, D/o late Birendra Mohan
Singh Presently resident of Mohalla- Shahi Clinic, Gurudwara Road,
Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur- 263153.
1(h) Mrs. Tripti Singh W/o Mr. Rajishwar Pratap Singh, D/o late Birendra
Mohan Singh Presently resident of Mohalla- Vivek Vihar(AWHO),
Flat No. D416, Section 82 Noida- 201304, U.P.
1(i) Mrs. Priyanka Singh W/o Mr. Ravi Ranjan, D/o late Birendra Mohan
Singh Presently resident of Mohalla- Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 1,
Opposite Water Tower, P.O. Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna-
16.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The Patna Municipal Corporation through Sri Kuldeep Narayan the
Commissioner, Mauryalok Complex, Opposite- Kotwali Police Station,
Patna-1
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. A.B. Ojha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.19762 of 2014 dt.11-04-2019
2/9
For the P.M.C. : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-04-2019
The petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to execute
a lease deed in respect of Plot No. 63"B", Block - "A"
Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 1, P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna.
The case of the petitioners is that plot of land
bearing no. 63"B" was owned and possessed by Patna
Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trust').
In due course the 'Trust' was suceeded by Patna Regional
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
'PRDA'). All the assets and liabilities of the Trust were
transferred to the 'PRDA' and subsequently those were
vested in Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as the 'PMC') under Ordinance No. 2/2007 and PMC Act
No. 11 of 2007.
It is the case of the petitioners that the original
petitioner (since deceased) was given the possession of the
plot on 23.10.1959. A house was constructed thereon in
which the petitioners are living. The cost of the plot was Rs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19762 of 2014 dt.11-04-2019
3/9
9699.28 paise besides ground rent of Rs. 5/- per annum.
According to the petitioners they paid Rs. 5602.24 in State
Bank of India, Patna on 22.09.1959 in favour of the Trust,
only Rs. 4097.04 paise could not be paid due to some
domestic disputes relating to ancestral properties.
Further case of the petitioners is that the Trust
had filed Money Suit No. 210/1966 which was later on
converted into Title Mortgage Suit No. 78/1974 because the
building in question was subject to Mortgage. The said
Mortgage Suit was decreed on 05.08.1974 whereunder the
court below allowed a sum of Rs. 1948.70 towards principal
and Rs. 15/- for ground rent together with a cost and the
total amount for which the decree was issued came to Rs.
2273.70 + 310 for the cost of the suit. It is the case of the
petitioner that the entire payments were made in court
through eight challans. Number of challans have been given
in the writ application and copies thereof have been brought
on record with the rejoinder filed on behalf of the
petitioners.
It is submitted that in order to facilitate
execution of lease deed petitioners had made available all
Patna High Court CWJC No.19762 of 2014 dt.11-04-2019
4/9
concerned papers to the then 'PRDA' but for the reasons
best known to them they were sitting tight over the matter.
It appears that the writ application was initially
filed by the husband of the present petitioner no.1 who had
died on 07.09.2017, thereafter name of the petitioner was
substituted vide I.A. No. 8780/2017. The petitioner has
thereafter filed one I.A. No. 3/2019 to add further reliefs in
the writ application.
By filing Interlocutory Application being I.A.
No. 03/2019 now the petitioner is praying to quash the
order contained in letter no. 368 dated 12.01.2019 by which
the petitioners asked to deposit Rs. 56,67,268.00. It is the
stand of the petitioners that the entire payments in terms of
the mortgage decree have been made long back but the
respondent corporation is not looking into those documents
which have already been submitted with the then 'PRDA'
and by ignoring those documents now a huge liability of
over Rs. 56 lakhs have been created against the petitioners.
It appears that the matter was earlier taken up
on 03.01.2019, the court passed the following order: -
"In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19762 of 2014 dt.11-04-2019
5/9
Estate Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna a
statement has been made that as per revised rate of
Rs.12,97,500/- of the plot in question, due amount
has been calculated as on 31.03.2016 which comes to
Rs.54,86,507/-. The deponent of the counter affidavit
nowhere states that in past the petitioner has ever
been served with any such demand showing the
calculations of Rs.54,86,507/-. The Estate Officer is,
therefore, directed to communicate the petitioner, the
demand, if any, with complete calculations showing
the mode and manner by which such amount has
been reached by the Estate Officer. This exercise will
at least give an opportunity to the petitioner to
understand the nature of demand and he would be in
a position to come out with his stand thereon. Let the
whole exercise be completed within a period of three
weeks.
List this matter on 24.01.2019 when a further
affidavit on behalf of the Estate Officer should be
available on the record showing the steps taken by
him during this period.
Let it be recorded that this order is being passed
without prejudice to the right and contention of the
petitioner and as and when occasion will arise the
petitioner will have an opportunity to contest such
demand in accordance with law."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order the calculation
was made and now the same has been challenged by filing
the interlocutory Application.
The Municipal Corporation has come out with
it's second supplementary counter affidavit admitting
Patna High Court CWJC No.19762 of 2014 dt.11-04-2019
6/9
therein the payment of Rs. 5,702.24 till 05.09.1959. It is
also admitted therein that Title Suit No. 328/1963 and
78/1974 was filed before the competent court. However, the
pleas of the Corporation are that the detail of the suit as well
as the dues of balance amount are not available in the
official record. It is their stand that they are not aware as to
how the payment of the due amount were made by the
allottee.
In paragraph '17' of the second supplementary
counter affiavit it is stated that "it is necessary to submit
that in the Revenue Receipt, the receipt number and the
date with regard to deposit of the payment of balance
amount for the plot in question has not been mentioned. If
the balance amount has been deposited, the petitioners can
show the photocopy of the receipt."
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the records which has been discussed
hereinabove, this court finds that the Municipal Corporation
is admitting receipt of Rs. 5702.24 till 05.09.1959. The
Corporation is also admitting about the Title Mortgage Suit
No. 78/1974, but thereafter they have simply stated that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19762 of 2014 dt.11-04-2019
7/9
official record is not having the documents as regards the
detail position of the suit and the dues of the balance
amount. The Corporation has also come out with a stand
that the revenue receipts and other documents with regard
to deposit of payment of balance amount may be shown by
the petitioners.
Under these circumstances, it is apparent and
evident from the records that the various documents such as
the copy of the judgment and decree of the Mortgage Suit
as contained in Annexure-5 and copies of the Challans
available at Annexure-6 series with the rejoinder of the
petitioners have not at all been looked into and considered
by the Corporation. This court also finds from Annexure-'7'
enclosed with the rejoinder of the petitioner that vide letter
no. 20533 dated 19.06.2013 the Estate Officer of the
Corporation had called upon the petitioners to submit all the
papers relating to the mortgage suit and the proof of
payment so that further action may be taken upon the
application of the petitioners. It appears from Annexure-'8'
to the rejoinder that in response to the letter dated
19.06.2013written by the Estate Officer of the Corporation Patna High Court CWJC No.19762 of 2014 dt.11-04-2019 8/9 the petitioner had submitted his letter along with certain enclosures.
In all fairness, equity and justice the Municipal Corporation should have while filing supplementary counter affidavit looked into those documents which are very much available on the record and a stand should have been taken with specific consideration of those documents which have not been done in the present case.
In the totality of the circumstances, this court finds that the Municipal Corporation is required to do certain exercise with reference to the materials which are available on the record. This court directs that the petitioners shall once again submit all those documents with an affidavit in the office of the Municipal Commissioner within a period of two weeks from today. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation shall look into those documents, examine the same and upon a proper consideration thereof will take a reasoned decision with regard to the request of the petitioners to execute the lease deed of the plot in question. So far as the calculation which have been submitted and is under challenge by the Patna High Court CWJC No.19762 of 2014 dt.11-04-2019 9/9 petitioners in the Interlocutory Application is concerned, the same shall not be enforceable as the court has found that the Municipal Corporation is required to examine the documents and take a decision afresh.
Let such a decision be taken and communicated to the petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the affidavit with all supporting documents of the petitioners in the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna within the prescribed period.
Accordingly, this writ application as well as I.A. No. 3 of 2019 stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 12.04.2019 Transmission Date