Patna High Court - Orders
Bidyotama Devi vs The Bihar State Housing Board&Amp; on 21 April, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.13531 of 2010
1. BIDYOTAMA DEVI W/O LATE SHAMBHU NATH SHARMA R/O
IN FRONT OF LIG PLOT NO. 28, NOW IN FRONT OF M.I.G. PLOT
NO. S/378 AND S/377, P.O. LOHIANAGAR, P.S.KANKARBAGH,
DISTT-PATNA
Versus
1. THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD THROUGH ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR 6 MANGLES ROAD, PATNA
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD 6
MANGLES ROAD, PATNA
3. THE MANAGER ESTATE, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD 6,
MANGLES ROAD, PATNA
4. SMT. SEEMA SINGH W/O SRI GOURI SHANKAR SINGH R/O
MIG PLOT NO. S/378, LOHIA NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, PATNA
5. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary , Deptt. Of
Urban Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
6. The Patna Municipal Corporation through the Municipal
Commissioner, Bihar, Patna (the successor Organization of PRDA)
-----------
9. 21.04.2011No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar or the Patna Municipal Corporation.
Counsel for the Housing Board submits that under no circumstances can the petitioner be allowed to encroach on any area of the land acquired and handed over to the Housing Board.
If the contention of the counsel for the Housing Board be accepted the logical conclusion would be that the petitioner is required to be walled up in her house with no means of ingress and egress.
The order dated 27.1.2011 more than adequately notices that the writ application is raising far more serious issues with regard to Urban Planning of the town of the Patna including laying of residential plots, pathways for 2 ingress and egress etc. The writ petition in its present form is raising more of an administrative issue at this stage with regard to Urban Planning rather than legal issues. There can be no two opinions that the petitioner cannot be allowed to occupy any area settled with the Housing Board. But simultaneously, the State Government or the Patna Municipal Corporation shall have to provide a path way for ingress and egress to the petitioner from her plot. These were issues to be more properly considered and kept in mind as part of larger Urban Planning at the time that the lands were acquired for the Housing Board.
The matter is referred to the Secretary, Urban Department whom the Court considers the most appropriate authority at this stage of the case to deal with issues.
The Secretary, Urban Development shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner/her representative, to the Housing Board, to the Patna Municipal Corporation as also respondent no. 4/her representative. Needless to stated that the concern of the Court only is that the petitioner must have an ingress and egress to her residential plot.
Awaiting the report of the Secretary, Urban Development, as prayed on behalf of the State of Bihar, list 3 after six months under the same heading at the same position.
In the meantime, the interim direction contained in the order dated 3.3.2011 with regard to the 7 feet 7 inches passage shall continue to operate.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)