Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Birendra Patel vs The State Of Bihar &Ors on 2 December, 2011

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7754 of 2008

                Birendra Patel, son of Harinandan Singh, Mohalla Rajapur, PS Budha
                Colony, Dist. Patna.
                                                  Vs.
                1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Urban Dev. Dept., Bihar,
                    Patna.
                2. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation / PRDA
                    (Dissolved), Maurya Lok Complex, Patna - Respondents 1st set.
                3. Jag Mohan Singh,
                4. Vishwa Mohan Singh, sons of Deo Pd. Singh, Mohalla Mainpura, PS
                    Patliputra, Dist. Patna.
                5. Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sakaldeo Singh, North
                    Anandpuri, PS SK Puri, Patna.
                6. M/s. Mundeshwai Building & Developers Private Ltd. Budha Colony,
                    PS Budha Colony, Patna - Respondents 2nd set.
                7. Smt. Ram Jatani Devi, wife of Late Harinandan Pd Singh.
                8. Akhilesh Binod Patel,
                9. Chandan Bikram Patel, both sons of Late Harinandan Singh, Mohalla
                    Rajapur, PS Budha Colony, Patna - Respondents 3rd set.

3   2.12.2011

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Patna Municipal Corporation.

There appears to be a dispute between the petitioner, respondents 2nd set and respondents 3rd set as well.

The petitioner had entered into a development agreement with respect to the land appertaining to CS plot no. 1649, khata no. 770, Tauzi 8452, situated at Mauza Mainpura known as North SK Puri with respect to 6 kathas of land. Apparently respondents 2nd set has also entered into an agreement with respondents 3rd set with respect to construction of a building.

It is alleged in the writ petition that respondents 2 nd set has submitted a plan for sanction to the Patna Municipal Corporation. By virtue of the aforesaid plan the petitioner's egress and ingress to his house would be blocked. The petitioner has also filed T.S. No. 72/2007 which is pending adjudication. 2 In any view of the matter, it is the Patna Municipal Corporation which has to sanction the plan. While sanctioning the plan the Corporation has to look into any objections filed with respect to the plan in question and decide the matter according to the rules. It appears that a multi storeyed building has already been constructed. The petitioner may approach the Corporation which will examine the matter and pass appropriate orders.

This writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

haque                             ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)