Patna High Court - Orders
The Managing Director,Bihar St vs Anand Prakash Anand & Ors on 29 March, 2011
Author: T. Meena Kumari
Bench: T. Meena Kumari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.381 of 2011
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,BIHAR STATE HOUSING
BOARD, MANGALAS ROAD, PATNA-1, BIHAR.
2. THE LAND PROPERTY OFFICER, BIHAR STATE
HOUSING BOARD, MANGALAS ROAD, PATNA-1,
BIHAR.
3. THE REVENUE OFFICER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING
BOARD, PATNA.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING
BOARD, PATNA DIVISION-1, BIHAR, PATNA.
..............................RESPONDENTS....APPELLANTS.
Versus
1. ANAND PRAKASH ANAND, SON OF LATE
GURUMUKH DAS ANAND, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA
AT PRESENT PRAMEELA VASTRALAY, MITHAPUR,
PATNA, P.O.-G.P.O., PATNA, P.S.-JAKKANPUR,
DISTRICT-PATNA, PERMANENT ADDRESS 14/86,
SAVARN PATH, MANSAROBAR, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN.
...........................PETITIONER.........RESPONDENT.
2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.....................RESPONDENT..............RESPONDENT.
3. SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE LAKSHMA
PRASAD, VILLAGE-BIJOKHARI, P.O. + P.S.-TELHARA,
DISTRICT-NALANDA.
.....................RESPONDENT..............RESPONDENT.
......................................................RESPONDENTS.
-----------
For the Appellants : M/s. R.S. Pradhan, Senior Advocate
and Binod Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate.
No.1.
-----------
4. 29.3.2011. I.A. No.1690 of 2011:
This application has been filed for condoning the 2 delay of about 126 days in preferring this appeal.
Heard the parties.
On being satisfied with the reasons furnished in this application, the delay of about 126 days in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned.
L.P.A. No.381 of 2011:
Now, we proceed to consider this appeal on its own merit.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.8.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No 15666 of 2010 which had been filed by the Respondent no. 1 herein, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has quashed the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the Revenue Officer of the Housing Board (Annexure-'7'), by which the Respondent No.1 was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,12,461/- so as to enable the Housing Board to take action for final transfer of property. The said order has been quashed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the said letter has been issued after a period of 1 ½ years and there is no basis for issuance of such letter. The learned Single Judge has made certain observation stating that action of the appellate authorities is illegal and appears to 3 be for some nefarious design and ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the appellants has filed supplementary affidavit enclosing the calculation chart and the learned counsel has argued that the amount Rs.31,398.98/- remains payable by the petitioner to the respondents by the end of March, 2011 and on such payment only, he would finally be able to enter into the final transfer of the leased flat in favour of the respondent. It is further argued that for payment of such amount the petitioner has made an application seeking permission to transfer the said leased flat to a third party i.e., the Respondent no. 3, in the present L.P.A. It is also contended that such permission cannot be granted till the amount remain to be paid by the Respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that a direction may be issued to the Housing Board to issue permission to transfer such flat to the Respondent No. 3 as the respondent would like to transfer the flat on a personal reason.
We have also gone through the records of the Board and the calculation chart filed by the Standing Counsel of the Housing Board. As the amount has come to nearly Rs.31,398.98/- which is the differential amount between the revised tentative cost to be paid by the respondent till the 4 March 2011 for transfer of flat. If the Respondent No.1 make such payment within six weeks to the Housing Board from the date of receipt of this order, the Housing Board shall transfer the flat in the name of the Respondent No.3 and also issue permission for transfer the property in favour of respondent no. 3, who is the proposed buyer of the flat in question as per the terms and conditions of the Regulation of the Housing Board dealing with such transfer within a period of four weeks of such deposit from the date of the deposit of amount of Rs. 31,398.98/- by the Respondent No.3. It is also made clear that as the Respondent No.3 is more than of 90 years, the Housing Board should take sympathetic view in passing the transfer orders and issuing permission as indicated above.
This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of above observation.
( T. Meena Kumari, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/-P.S.