Patna High Court
Smt. Vidya Devi Sinha And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 20 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)BLJR420
Author: Aftab Alam
Bench: Aftab Alam
JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J.
1. This writ petition was filed by one Vidya Devi Sinha and her husband Sisir Kumar Sinha as petitioners 1 and 2. Vidya Devi Sinha died during the pendency of this writ petition. After her death her heirs and legal representatives got themselves substituted in her place and now it is the sons and daughters of the deceased Vidya Devi Sinha who along with their father seek the reliefs that were earlier claimed by the deceased petitioner No. 1.
2. This writ petition seeks reclamation of a house situate in Gaya and belonging to the deceased Vidya Devi Sinha (hereinafter referred to as 'the house owner') which was auction sold in a proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. The certificate proceeding was initiated for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,840.28, claimed by the Gaya Municipal Corporation as arrears of Municipal taxes; adding to this sum, the Court fee amount, the interest pendente lite and various other charges, the certificate amount on the date of auction accumulated to a sum of Rs. 35,341.83 palse. Though the sale is said to be made on the basis of auction, there was but one bidder present (the representative of the Corporation) who made a single bid of an amount exactly equal to the certificate dues. The Municipal Corporation was thus able to 'purchase' and secure the house for itself at a ridiculously low price.
3. The house commonly known as 'Sinha Bhawan' is assigned holding No. 63 within Ward No. 1/A of Gaya Municipal Corporation and is situate at Chowk Road, Tutwari In the town of Gaya. A photograph of the house is one of the record from which it appears to be a three storeyed (ground + two), fully pucca building. The building is so designed that it has two identical wings on either sides of the stairs which are placed in the centre. It has also come on the record that there were 14 flats in the building. As it appears to me from the photograph, at the time of the auction sale in the year 1987, the house should have fetched a price of several lacs of rupees if sold in the market at arms' length.
4. According to the deceased house owner who had originally filed this writ petition, all the developments beginning from the enhancement of the municipal taxes of the house, the institution of the certificate case for the recovery of the municipal dues and the proclamation for the attachment and sale of her house took place behind her back and without any notice or information to her. She came to learn about the house being put up for auction sale only at the last minute and when she approached the Certificate Officer at that stage she was not allowed any opportunity to file her objections or to put forth her case.
5. It was stated in the writ petition that during the period the developments took place leading to the sale of her house she was not living at Gaya but was living with her husband who was an employee of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. According to her case in that period her husband, petitioner No. 2 was posted at several places. He was initially transferred from Gaya to Patna and from Patna to Guwahati and from Guwahati to Calcutta and from Calcutta again to Patna. All this while she was living with her husband, petitioner No. 2 and was, therefore, unaware of the developments concerning her house at Gaya.
6. Having thus noted in brief the case of the petitioners I now propose to turn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Administrator, Gaya Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 4 to see the material facts of the case as stated by him. Here I would like to make it clear that henceforth all the facts and circumstances stated in this judgment are taken either from the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 or from the records of the certificate case. In other words, the judgment proceeds not on the basis of any allegations of fact made by the petitioners but on the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated in the counter affidavit of respondent No. 4 or as appearing from the records of the certificate case.
7. According to respondent No. 4 prior to 1.4.1971 the annual rental value of the house was fixed at Rs. 1500/- on which municipal taxes were levied @ Rs. 500/- annually. In 1971 the annual rental value of the house was revised to Rs. 6500/- on which municipal taxes were levied @ Rs. 540.90 for every quarter. It is stated in the counter affidavit that a notice regarding the enhancement of assessment was sent to the house owner on 2.5.1971 as required under Section 115(2) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. It is further stated that the notice under Section 115(2) was served upon the house owner but she, after reading its contents, refused to accept it and consequently the notice was pasted on the door of the house. In support of the statement photostat copies of the notice dated 2.5.1971 and its service report, dated 3.5.1971 are enclosed as Annexures 'A' and 'A/1' respectively to the counter affidavit. Later, in the year 1980, the valuation of the holding was further enhanced from Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- on which municipal taxes were levied w.e.f. 1.4.1980 @ Rs. 1,062.50 per quarter. As on the previous occasion this time too a notice under Section 115(2) of the Act was issued on 2.9.1981 but the house owner once again refused to accept it after going through its contents and consequently the server pasted it on the door of the house. A copy of the notice and its service report are marked as Annexures 'A/2' and 'A/3' to the counter affidavit.
8. According to the respondents, despite service of notice, the house owner did not file any petition for review against the enhancement of the tax either in 1971 or in 1980.
9. Later on 2.9.1983 a notice under Section 123 of the Municipal Act was issued asking the petitioners to make payment of the arrears of municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 22,840.28. This notice too was served upon her on 9.9.1983 but as was her wont she again, having gone through it declined to give any receipt whereupon the server pasted it on the door of the house. A photostat copy of the notice and the service report are marked as Annexures 'A/4' and 'A/5' to the counter affidavit.
10. As the petitioner failed to make payment of the municipal taxes demanded in the notice, the Corporation on 14.11.1983 finally filed a requisition for certificate before the Certificate Officer.
11. In order to examine the developments beyond this point the source would be naturally the records of the certificate case. But before turning to the records of the certificate case, I would like to point out some anomalies in the service reports of notices enclosed with the counter affidavit of respondent No.4.
12. As rioted above, according to respondent No. 4, notices under Section 115(2) of the Municipal Act were served on the house owner on both the occasions when the A.R.V. and the municipal taxes of the house were revised upwards and a 3rd notice was given to the house owner under Section 123 of the Act demanding arrears of rent. The 1st notice (under Section 115(2): Annexure-A) is dated 2.5.1971 and its report, on the back of the notice, is dated 3.5.1971 (Annexure A/1).
13. The 2nd notice (under Section 15(2): Annexure A/2) does not bear any date. However, in para 8 of the counter affidavit the notice is said to have been issued on 2.9.1981. The service report of this notice, on its back, is dated 9.4.1980 (Annexure A/3). I am prepared to accept that the date of the issuance of the notice as stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit is a simple mistake, without any significance.
14. The 3rd notice (under Section 123 of the Act: Annexure A/4) making demand for payment of arrears of rent is, dated 2.9.1983. Its service report, dated 9.9.1983 is at Annexure A/5. All these enclosures from Annexure A/1 to Annexure A/5 are the photostat copies of the three notices and their service reports.
15. All the three service reports, dated 3.7.1971 (Annexure A/1), 9.4.1980 (Annexure A/3) and 9.9.1983 (Annexure A/5) are by the same peon, namely, Murari Singh and there appears to be absolutely no change in his handwriting over a period of more than twelve years. The handwriting of all the three service reports is very similar. What, however, appears to me as a highly curious feature of these service reports is the absolute uniformity of their wording. The notice server went to the house after an Interval of nine years between the 1st and the 2nd notice and after an interval of more than three years between the 2nd and the 3rd notice and on each occasion he was able to meet the lady house owner on the first visit and on each occasion the house owner refused to give a receipt, though she went through and understood the contents of the notices, and on each occasion the notice server chose the south facing door of the house for pasting the notices.
16. Coming now to the wording, each service report is made in the following manner:
notice he Kar Goya Vidya Devi Se Mulakat Hua. Apne (sic) Naam Ka Notice Padh Kar Wo Samajh Kar Notice Lene Se Inkar Kiya. Is Liye Notice Oonke Pokhta Do Manzila Makan Ke Dakshin Rukh Ke Darwaza Par Saat Diya. Agal Baghal Ke Logon Se Gwah (sic) Banane Kaha. Gawahi Banane Se Inkar Gaye (sic). Oonka Naam Pooch Kar Likh Liya Jo Pusht Par Maujood Hat
17. It Is to be noted that even the mistakes of writing are the same In the three reports. The aforementioned uniformity of the service reports can be said to be due to co-incidence but. In my view, such Co-incidence1 would be more likely if the three service reports were prepared at one and the same time.
18. I have dealt with the service reports of notices In such detail because service of notice under Section 123(2) of the Municipal Act is the pre-condition for application of Section 129-A which provides that any arrear of municipal tax would be recoverable as a public demand.
19. New it has to be seen how the certificate case proceeded and how far the proceeding for the realisation of the municipal dues were in accordance with law. But before that it Will be useful to examine some provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') in so far as relevant for this case. Section 5 of the Act provides that when any public demand payable to any person other than the Collector is due such person may send to the Certificate Officer a written requisition in the prescribed form.
20. Section 6 provides for filing of certificate on requisition.
Section 7 provides for service of notice and copy of certificate on certificate debtor. The provision of Section 7 being Important for this case needs to be reproduced here:
7. Service of notice and copy of certificate on certificate debtor--When a certificate has been filed in the office of a Certificate Officer under Section 4 or Section 6, he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debtor, in the prescribed manner, a notice in. the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate.
(emphasis added)
21. The next section relevant for our purpose is Section 14 which is as under:
14. When certificate may be executed--No step in execution of a certificate shall be taken until the period of thirty days has elapsed since the date of the service of the notice required by Sections 7 and 11, or, when a petition has been duly filed under Section 9, until such petition has been heard and determined.
Provided that, if the Certificate Officer in whose office a certificate is filed is satisfied that the certificate-debtor is likely to conceal, remove or dispose of the whole or any part of such of his moveable property as is liable to attachment under this Act, and the realization of the certificate would in consequence be delayed--or obstructed, he may at any time direct for reasons to be recorded in writing, an attachment of the whole or any part of such moveable property.
(emphasis added)
22. Section 15 deals with the modes of execution of a certificate and provides sale of any property as one of the modes of execution of a certificate (the other being arrest and detention of the certificate debtor).
23. Section 17 provides for the recovery of the amount of interest, cost and charges incurred in the proceeding.
24. Section 28 provides for setting aside of sale of immovable property in case the certificate debtor or any other Interested person makes an application in this regard within 30 days from the date of the sale and despite the amount as specified in that section.
25. Section 29 provides for setting aside sale of immovable property on ground of non-service of notice or irregularity in the certificate proceeding. This section is as follows:
29. Application to set aside sale of immoveable property on ground of non-service of notice or irregularity-(I) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a certificate the certificate holder, the certificate-debtor or any person whose Interests are affected by the sale may at any time within sixty days from the date of the sale apply to the Certificate Officer to set aside the sale on the ground that notice was not served under Section 7 or on the ground of a material irregularity in the certificate proceedings or in publishing or conducting the sate:
Provided as follows:
(a) no sale shall be set aside on the ground of any such material Irregularity unless the Certificate Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury thereby; and
(b) before the Certificate Officer passes an order setting aside a sale under this section he shall require the certificate debtor to pay the amount actually found due from him.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) the Certificate Officer may entertain an application made after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the sale If he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for so doing.
26. Section 31 provides when a sale Will become absolute or when Will it be set aside.
27. Rules 24 to 30 of the Rules lay down, in detail, the procedure to be followed for the sale of property and those provisions, if need be, would be referred to at the appropriate stage in this judgment.
28. It is in the light of the aforementioned legal provisions that the proceeding of the certificate case are to be examined as appearing from the order sheet and other materials on the record of the case.
29. It is stated by respondent No. 4 that on 14.11.1983 a requisition under Section 5 of the Public Demands Recovery Act was filed by the Executive Officer of the Corporation before the Certificate Officer. This gave rise to Certificate Case No. 1/1983-84 in the file of the District Certificate Officer, Gaya. The order sheet of the case begins on 29.11.1983 with a rubber stamped order regarding the receipt of a requisition for recover of due amounting to Rs. 27,741.23 in the name of Vidya Devi. The stamped order directs for the issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act, fixing 28.12.1983 and further directs the case to be put up on 30.12.1983.
30. The order, dated 30.12.1983 translated into English would read as follows:
Service report of notice under Section 7 not received because CD. does not live in Gaya. These days she lives in Patna. Therefore, on the basis of the peon's report, notice has been sent to Patna for service. The peon's report is on the record. But up on 14.12.1984.
31. On 14.2.1984 the service report of notice was not received and the case was directed to be put up on 27.2.1984. From the order sheet, however, it appears that the case was put up after one year and five months on 30.7.1985 and the next order after 14.2.1984 is dated as 27.2.1984/30.7.1985. On that date it was directed to send notice to the certificate debtor by registered post on her address in Patna. There is no indication, however, that in compliance of the direction, any notice by registered post was in fact sent to the house owner. The next order dated 26.8.1985/15.11.1985 records that the service report of notice was not received and there was no appearance on behalf of the certificate debtor. It was directed to issue a show cause notice. The next order, dated 18.3.1983 (sic) states that the address of the certificate debtor was received from the Corporation and directs for issuance of Aasedh Patra on that address. The next order passed on 12.8.1986 says that the money has not been recovered and directs for issuance of Aasedh Patra and for putting up the case on 30.9.1986. Instead of 30.9.1986 the case was put up on 3.1.1987 and the date of the order was shown as 30.9.1986/3.1.1987. The order passed on that date springs something of a surprise; translated into English it reads thus:
The C.D. does not have any moveable property from which recovery could be made. That is how it appears. Therefore, issue notice for putting up the house in question for auction sale.
To 15.1.97.
32. There can be only two explanations for passing this order; one is that the certificate officer got weary and impatient of the proceeding and hence initiated steps for putting the house for auction sale completely disregarding the legal position that service of notice under Section 7 is the precondition for the execution of the certificate; the second explanation is that the order was passed without any application of mind and without verifying from the records of the case regarding service of Section 7 notice on the certificate debtor. Neither of the two explanations is quite complimentary about the manner in which the certificate case proceeded.
33. The next order, dated 15.1.1987 reads as follows:
The service report is received in respect of the auction proclamation issued under Section (sic) 25. Peon's report is that CD. lives in Patna whose address is on that back of the notice. Let, therefore, proper notice issue on the given address afresh. Put up on 23.1.1987.
34. The order, dated 23.1.1987 is quite peculiar and it reads as follows:
On 23.1.1987 there was strike of the general Federation of non-gazetted employee. Therefore, the records could not be put up. Hence, fresh notice be Issued under Section (sic) 25. Put up on 30.3.87.
Though on the one hand it Is being said that the record could not be put up on 23.1.1987 on account of the employees' strike, yet the order is shown to be recorded on that date.
35. The next order is dated 30.3.1987/1.4.1987 which reads as follows:
CD. has not appeared in Court nor has she made payment of the amount due concerning this case. Let steps be taken for putting the dues bearing holding on auction sale for recovery of the dues. Let the proclamation for auction sale under Rule 25 (ii) be published in newspapers having local and State wise circulation. Let copies of the notice be sent to the District Public Relation Officer for publication.
Put up the records on 15.5.1987.
36. On the record there is a sheet of paper on which charges were noted.
From that it appears that the proclamation was published in the following news paper:
1. Gaya Samachar on 8.4.1987.
2. Magadh Dharti on 17.4.1987
3. Tarakki Ka Rasta on 4.6.1987
4. Magadh Dharti on 12.6.1987 The choice of newspaper makes one wonder whether the object was to give the proclamation a wide publicity or to suppress it.
37. The next order, dated 15.5.1987 is as follows:
The proclamation of auction under Rule 25(ii) was published in newspapers having local and State circulation but CD. has not appeared in Court nor the due amount has been paid by her. Let the auction proclamation ('Neelami Ishtehar')be issued under Section 25 for the recovery of the due amount. 15.6.1987 is fixed as the date for auction. A copy of the auction proclamation be sent to the CD. by registered post. A copy of the proclamation be sent for publication In a local newspaper. Let copies of the proclamation be pasted on the notice boards in the offices of the Collector, the undersigned, the Sub-divisional Officer. Sadar, Gaya and outside the office of the Administrator Municipal Corporation for notice to the general public. Let a copy of the proclamation be pasted on the house of the C.D. Also issue direction to the Nazir. District Nazarat to make the announcement by beat of drum.
Put up the record on 15.6.1987.
38. From the record of the case It appears that at that stage the certificate debtor filed a petition before the Certificate Officer on 12.6.1987. In this petition it was clearly stated that no notice either issued from the Municipal Corporation concerning the enhancement of house tax nor issued by the Certificate Officer under Section 7 of the Act was ever served upon her; that at that time she was residing in Patna and came to learn from a person coming from Gaya on the previous day that her house was going to be auction sold by the Government. She accordingly made a prayer for staying the auction sale fixed for 15.6.1987 and for a direction to the Municipal Corporation to make correction in its demand for the amount of house tax stating further that she was Willing and ready to make payment of all lawful dues. This petition was took up by the Certificate Officer on 15.6.1987 when the following order was passed:
Objection petition rejected on account of delayed submission. The debtor has filed a petition with Vakalatnama. She is given only two days time for making payment of the dues. On failure to make payment during this period the house Will be auction sold on 17.6.1987.
39. It appears to me to be an extra-ordinary order. As seen above, from the order sheet of the case itself it was manifest that neither the notice under Section 7 of the Act nor the notice of proclamation of sale under Rule 25 of the Rules was served upon the certificate debtor. She herself said so clearly in the petition filed on 12.6.1987, and yet the Certificate Officer rejected the petition on the ground that it was submitted after delay. The Certificate Officer thus acted contrary to the repeated mandate of law as contained in Sections 7, 9 and 14 of the Act and the error appears to be so basic and gross that it raises a suspicion that the action of the Certificate Officer was not guided entirely by judicial considerations. The certificate debtor failed to make payment of the Certificate dues by 17.6.1987 and on that date the auction of the house was fixed for 19.6.1987. On that date the Certificate Officer was busy in some other work and the auction of the house eventually took place on 20.6.1987. That order passed on that date reads as follows:
No one excepting the representative of the Municipal Corporation appears for the auction. The Municipal Corporation has also submitted its reply to the objection filed by the certificate debtor. Objection is rejected on the ground that it was not filed by the fixed date.
In this case the total dues amount to Rs. 35,341.83 paise. The Municipal Corporation wishes to purchase the house on payment of the entire due amount and it has made this offer in writing:
Hence, all the house and the land bearing No. 63 and situated at Chowk Road, Tutwari under Ward No. 1-A of Gaya Town is auction sold in favour of the Municipal Corporation and the Gaya Municipal Corporation is declared the purchaser of this holding and the house. The Municipal Corporation is directed to make payment of 25% of the bid amount in course of the day. It Will also be open to it to make the entire payment today. Nazir to accept the deposit.
To 20.7.1987.
40. From the note in the margin of the order-sheet it appears that the payment of Rs. 35,341.83 was made by the Corporation on 22.6.1987, that is to say, no payment was made on the date of the auction as directed by the order.
41. It further appears from the record of the case that in the sale proclamation the tentative valuation of the house was fixed at Rs. 75,000/- (the initial figure of Rs. 80.000/- was penned through and was substituted by Rs. 75,000/-). It is, not at all clear why the sale was made at less than half the amount of even the value fixed in the sale proclamation.
42. From the record of the case it appears that on behalf of the Certificate debtor a petition was then filed under Section 29 of the Act for setting aside the sale on ground of non-service of notice. In para 10 of this petition it was clearly stated that in the certificate case no notice was ever served upon the certificate debtor either at her Gaya residence or at her Patna residence.
43. This petition under Section 29 of the Act was taken up by the Certificate Officer on 19.8.1987 and the order, dated 20.7.1987/19.8.1987 reads as follows:
A petition along with Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the debtor in which a prayer is made to cancel the order of auction sale dated 20.4.1987. The debtor is directed to make payment or the entire upto date consideration money of the auction sale after which the petition Will be taken up for consideration.
44. It was once again an extraordinary order and the Certificate Officer seems to have completely over looked the difference between the provisions contained in Sections 28 and 29 of the Act. The Certificate debtor was making a grievance that the house was auction sold without service of Section 7 notice on her and Section 29 of the Act cast an obligation upon the Certificate Officer to examine her grievance on the basis of the materials on record. The question of payment of the amount actually found due could arise before setting aside the sale but for examining the question of non-service of notice no payment was required to be made by the certificate debtor.
45. The payment was not made by the certificate debtor and the petition under Section 29 of the Act filed on her behalf was finally rejected by order, dated 17.10.1997 as it appeared to the Certificate Officer that the debtor had no intention to make payment of the due amount. On the same day the sale in favour of the Corporation was made absolute.
46. From the record it further appears that a volumnous and bulky petition was filed by the house owner under Section 63 of the Act for review of the orders passed in the certificate case. The review petition too was rejected in the year 1992 and finally this writ petition was filed before this Court.
47. From the facts and circumstances appearing from the order-sheet and the materials on the record of the case it is manifest that the certificate proceeding was held in a grossly illegal manner and I find it difficult to conceive of a more thoroughly irregular proceeding. I am further constrained to observe that the personal liberty and property of citizens do not appear to be safe if the powers conferred by law are left to be exercised in such callous hands. I am conscious that it is a harsh observation but the loss and harassment suffered by the petitioners are also very grave.
48. On the basis of the materials examined by me as indicated above I come to the following conclusions:
(i) The service reports of the notices issued under Section 115(2) and Section 123 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act concerning the enhancement of the house tax and the payment of the arrears of municipal taxes do not inspire confidence and there is no evidence to suggest that those notices were in fact served on the house owner.
(ii) in the certificate case no notice under Section 7 was served upon the certificate debtor as is evident from the order sheet of the case itself.
(iii) in the absence of service of Section 7 notice on the certificate debtor, the action of the Certificate Officer in initiating steps for the sale of the house [vide orders dated 30.9.1986/3.1.1987, 5.1.1987, 30.3.1987/1.4.1987 and 15.5.1987) was contrary to the mandate of Section 14 of the Act and was wholly without jurisdiction.
(iv) The order, dated 15.6.1987 rejecting the objection filed by the certificate debtor on the ground that it was submitted after delay and directing her to pay the entire certificate amount within two days was wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of the Act.
(v) The order dated 20.7.1987/19.8.1987 passed on the petition filed by the certificate debtor under Section 29 of the Act asking her to deposit the entire sale money of the house and making it a condition precedent to consider the petition was contrary to Section 29 of the Act and was, therefore, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
(vi) The order, dated 17.10.1987 rejecting the certificate debtors application under Section 29 of the Act on her failure to deposit the sale money was wholly bad and illegal.
(vii) The circumstances that there was no one excepting the representative of the Municipal Corporation for the auction of the house and that the house was sold for the amount exactly equal to the certificate dues and for less than half the value fixed in the sale proclamation give rise to a suspicion that the recovery proceeding was not held in a judicial manner.
49. The proceeding suffers from many other irregularities but I have enumerated above only the more glaring ones. To my mind only one of the findings recorded above, would be fatal to the proceeding and the sale of the house is liable to be set aside on the basis of anyone of the above findings. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the auction sale of the petitioners' house by order, dated 20.7.1987 and its confirmation by order, dated 17.10.1987 was wholly bad and illegal. The sale of the house in favour of the Gaya Municipal Corporation is completely unsustainable in the eye of law. All orders commencing from the order dated 30.9.1986/3.1.1987 passed in Certificate Case No. 1/1983-84 are held and declared to be illegal, void and without jurisdiction. All those orders, including those passed on 20.6.1987 and 17.10.1987 are quashed. It, therefore, follows that the occupation of the house by the Municipal Corporation is wholly unauthorised. The Gaya Municipal Corporation is accordingly directed to vacate the house and hand over its possession to the petitioner within one month from today. The direction would naturally apply to any one in occupation of the house through or under the Gaya Municipal Corporation and all occupants of the house claiming through or under the Gaya Municipal Corporation must vacate the premises within one month from today. Failing this the District Magistrate, Gaya is directed to evict the Gaya Municipal Corporation and any one claiming through or under the Corporation from the house within 15 days after the expiry of the period of one month from today. The District Magistrate is made personally accountable to carry out this direction.
50. Within one month from the date, the possession of the house is restored to the petitioners they would appear in the certificate case and file their objection as provided under Section 9 of the Act. The proceeding Will then continue in accordance with law.
51. It Will be open to the petitioners to claim rent/damages from the Gaya Municipal Corporation for the period the house was under its unauthorised occupation. The petitioner may institute an action in this regard, in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum.
52. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-, The cost Will be payable by the Gaya Municipal Corporation to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority and the receipt showing payment should be filed in this Court within one month from today.