Patna High Court
Umesh Chandra And Ors vs Patna Regional Devp.Authority on 26 July, 2013
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9544 of 1993
===========================================================
1. Umesh Chandra
2. Prafulla Chandra
3. Vijay Chandra
Sons of Late Lalji Vishwakarma, All residents of Block No. 10, Flat No. L.F.-1/55,
Rajendra Nagar, Police Station - Kadamkuan, District - Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Patna Regional Development Authority, through its Vice Chairman, having his
office at Maurya Lok, Dakbunglow Road, Police Station, Kotawali, District-
Patna
2. Sri Ajay Kumar, IAS at present Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development
Authority, having his office at Maurya Lok, Dakbunglow Road, Police Station,
Kotawali, District- Patna
3. The Secretary, Patna Regional Development Authority, having his office at
Maurya Lok, Dakbunglow Road, Police Station, Kotawali, District- Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Man Mohan
Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal
Mr. Ram Niranjan Sahai
Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-07-2013 *************** Present writ application was filed challenging the order, dated 09.09.1993, passed in Eviction Case No. 6 of 1991, by virtue of which petitioners were ordered to be evicted from Flat No. L-F-1/55, Block No. 10, Rajendra Nagar.
Writ application was initially heard in admission. Taking into consideration the long period of occupation of the flat in question an effort was also made on behalf of petitioners to pay the cost of land of Rs. 25,000/- to Patna High Court CWJC No.9544 of 1993 dt.26-07-2013 2/4 the respondent PRDA to resolve the issue. However, they refused to accept the and, therefore, the writ application was admitted and Annexure-1 under challenge was stayed. It has taken 20 years now for the matter to be finally taken up and decided.
From the perusal of the impugned order, contained in Annexure-1, it is evident that the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "PRDA" for short) had taken a serious view of the fact that Late Shri Lalji Viswakarma was allotted a plot of land by the erstwhile PRDA and he also took possession of a flat of the PRDA, when a person could not hold two properties under the arrangement of PRDA. It is also alleged that the an allotted land, which was a lease hold property, was sold by Shri Lalji Vishwakarma without any permission or approval for such sale, having been granted by the erstwhile PRDA. This amounted to breach of the provision of allotment.
The factum of sale of the land is not being disputed. Plea had been taken that it was in a compelling circumstance, for the marriage of his daughter that he had to take a quick decision for alienation. The present flat in occupation was on the basis of a mutual exchange between certain individuals, Patna High Court CWJC No.9544 of 1993 dt.26-07-2013 3/4 which would be evident from perusal of Annexure-2. It is not a case of illegal occupation, but a case of bonafide allotment and occupation. This allotment was made many many years ago by the erstwhile Patna Improvement Trust, to be precise sometime in the year 1962-63.
The stand of the respondent- PRDA is that the decision had been taken in the background of the conduct of the petitioners. So far as they are concerned, the flat is under illegal occupation.
The Court has taken note of Annexure-2 and other surrounding circumstances. The indiscretion or the compulsion of alienation of land without the permission of PRDA is one aspect of the matter. But the other aspect is that the flat in question in under occupation of the petitioners for many-many decades now. The order of eviction was also stayed in the year 1994 and almost two decades have gone past since then. It will be inequitable now to allow enforcement of the order in question and oust the petitioners from the property, when the original allottee as well as the wife are no more and the children continue to live in that house.
The impugned order, contained in Annexure-1, therefore, is quashed. It is left open to the respondent Patna High Court CWJC No.9544 of 1993 dt.26-07-2013 4/4 authorities to take a reasonable view of the matter and make efforts for settlement of this property in favour of these petitioners on appropriate and suitable payments, which may be worked out by them, for after all their ouster would only mean that the settlement would be required to be re-made to somebody else. If the petitioners are willing to settle the issue on cost worked out by the respondents, there is no reason as to why they should be ousted first and then settle the property with somebodyelse.
The Writ application, therefore, stands allowed with a direction to the Patna Municipal Authority, the successor-in-interest to take decision in this regard preferably within a period of three months, if the petitioners are interested in resolving the dispute.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated: 26.07.2013 Shashi Kant Mishra NAFR/-