Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The brief facts of the case are that late Justice Gobind Mohan Mishra, was allotted plot no. 165 at Mohalla- Sri Krishna Puri, Type-B, ad-measuring 784.56 sq. yards, in accordance with the provisions of the Patna Improvement Trust (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1957 and the said land was settled in his favour for a period of 99 years on lease by the erstwhile Board of Trustees of Patna Improvement Trust by a registered lease deed dated 20.02.1967 and the possession was handed over to him on 28.04.1967. The terms and conditions of the said lease dated 20.02.1967 are same and similar to the lease dated 16.6.1966, as executed in the first case, as aforesaid. In the year 1980, the PRDA had offered an additional area of 1406 sq. feet (156.22 sq. yards), lying contiguous east to the demised Patna High Court CWJC No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 premises, to the father of the petitioners, which was allotted vide letter dated 16.06.1980, and the consideration money thereof was also paid, whereafter the said additional area was also settled in favor of the father of the petitioners, duly communicated vide letter dated 25.8.1980. After the settlement of the additional area with the lessee, a modified building plan was submitted by the lessee on 24.06.1980, which was processed vide Case No. 537 of 1980 and the then Vice Chairman of the PRDA had granted sanction on 01.08.1980. The said building plan, which was sanctioned by the PRDA, consisted of the original allotted area of 785.36 sq. yards plus the area of 1406 sq. feet, allotted later on. After three years, when the aforesaid sanction plan dated 1.8.1980 had expired, the same was submitted for revalidation and the map was revalidated on 16.02.1984 by the then Vice Chairman, PRDA, Patna, thus, the original lessee became owner of 8591.4 sq. feet of land. Subsequently, the original lessee died on 29.11.1994 and his wife also died on 8.7.2005, leading to the petitioners herein (three sons of the original lessee), filing a joint application before the respondent authorities for substitution and mutation of their names in place of their deceased father. The names of three petitioners were subsequently mutated by the respondent Municipality, after grant of approval by the Municipal Commissioner.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted that any plot held by any person as lessee from the Improvement Trust under a registered deed of lease for residential purpose would be deemed to be vested in such person / lessee as a perpetual lease from generation to generation.

26. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has Patna High Court CWJC No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 also submitted that the modified building plan was submitted by the lessee on 24.6.1980, which was processed vide Case No. 537 of 1980 and sanctioned by the then Vice Chancellor of the PRDA on 01.08.1980 and the said building plan consisted of original allotted area of 785.36 sq. yards plus the additional area allotted later on i.e. 1406 sq. feet. It is also submitted that since three years later, the sanction plan pertaining to Case No. 537 of 1980 dated 01.08.1980 had expired, the same was again submitted for revalidation and the map was revalidated on 16.02.1984 by the then Vice-Chairman, PRDA, Patna, hence, sanction having been accorded after due inspection of site by the Junior Engineer as well as by the Executive Engineer, as is borne out from the note dated 08.07.1980, no encroachment was found on either side of the road and the effect, in nutshell, was/is that the lessee became owner of 8591.4 sq. feet of land. In fact, record of the aforesaid Building Plan Case No. 537 of 1980 would also show that sanction was accorded after taking into consideration the additional area, allotted later. It is also the case of the petitioners that after the death of the original lessee on 29.11.1994 as also of his wife on 08.07.2005, joint application was filed by the petitioners for substitution and mutation of their names and after approval by the Municipal Commissioner, the correction slip was issued on 10.12.2008. It is also submitted that the petitioners have Patna High Court CWJC No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 been paying all the municipal taxes to the respondent authorities without fail.

29. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, now coming to the order dated 01.08.2014 passed in Vigilance Case No. 99A of 2013, has submitted that the Municipal Commissioner, PMC, has deliberately overlooked and omitted the relevant portion of the replies submitted by the petitioners as also the admitted existing position regarding allotment and settlement of the additional lands in favor of the petitioners in the year 1980 itself and has come to a perverse conclusion that the petitioners have encroached upon the lands of PRDA and reduced the width of the road from 90 feet to 80 feet. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even today, the building and the plot of the petitioners is in line with all other plots in the area and the road width is all along 80 feet. It is also submitted that since the building plan was sanctioned in the year 1980, by the then Vice Chairman, PRDA, the Municipal Commissioner has no jurisdiction / power to Patna High Court CWJC No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 review the same. It is also submitted that though in the impugned order dated 01.08.2014, the Municipal Commissioner has referred to certain paragraphs of the replies submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice, however, the most important portion of the reply of the petitioners, as contained in paragraph nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11, has been omitted wherein the petitioners have referred to the letter dated 25.08.2010 of the Estate Officer with regard to the additional area, admeasuring 1406 sq. feet, as also have contended that only after due examination and spot inspection, holding tax was fixed by the competent authority of the Patna Municipal Corporation and two separate holding numbers were allotted i.e. 2976 and 2976A for the residential and commercial portion respectively and the holding tax has also been paid & accepted for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

47. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the order dated 10.05.2013 passed in a public interest litigation by the learned Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 8152 of 2013 is also not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the building in question had been completed prior to passing of the said order dated 10.05.2013.

48. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, has got no power of review, hence, he was precluded from re-opening the issues, which his predecessor had already concluded. It is submitted that once, the map had been sanctioned or approved by the competent authority as also by the committee constituted Patna High Court CWJC No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 for this purpose under the modified building bye-laws, the same could not have either been cancelled or reviewed subsequently, in case of there being no fraud or no material misrepresentation. In the present case, there has been neither any fraud nor any material misrepresentation in getting the map sanctioned, but still, the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, has thought it proper to sit over the permission granted for construction by the then Chairman of the PRDA in the year, 1980 and 1984 and then, by the Commissioner in the year 2009, which is impermissible in law, since the Chairman, PRDA and the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, are of the same rank, hence, once, approval / sanction has been given by the competent authority as per Appendix-M of the building bye-laws, which permits construction of commercial complex on residential plots, the new incumbent could not have reopened the file and reviewed the sanction. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, has come to an erroneous finding that the sanctioned map in question is forged inasmuch as the map for G+2 residential building was sanctioned vide Plan Case No. 537 of 1980 on 05.08.1980, which was revalidated by PRDA on the request of the lessee. Thereafter, on 20.12.2007, the Patna Municipal Corporation resolved that for sanction of residential/ commercial building in Rajendra Patna High Court CWJC No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 Nagar and Sri Krishnapuri area, the existing building bye- laws shall be followed, whereafter, the legal heirs of the original lessee applied for modified building plan vide Plan Case No. 537 of 1980 with regard to the proposed residential cum commercial building i.e. B+G+6, as per the provisions contained in Appendix-M of the then existing bye-laws, which provides that under special circumstances, plan for commercial building can be sanctioned in a residential area. The modified building plan was then sanctioned by the competent authority vide the Revised Plan Case No. 537 of 1980 on 30.04.2009 and the Fire Department had also given its no objection vide letter dated 08.06.2009 and finally the approved plan was issued on 24.02.2010, the date on which raid was conducted in the office of the Patna Municipal Corporation Commissioner. It is submitted that only reason for doubting the genuineness of the map in question is that the revised map, which was revised on 30.04.2009 by the then Executive Engineer, does not contain the signature of Assistant Engineer as well as the Office Assistant and the issue register does not indicate that any such map was issued. In this regard, it is submitted that the said reasoning / finding of the learned Commissioner are absurd inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that the map was sanctioned on 30.04.2009 and then, it was sent to the Fire Department, which gave its approval vide letter dated 08.06.2009 and the learned Commissioner Patna High Court CWJC No.6546 of 2017 dt.02-11-2020 nowhere in the impugned order dated 01.08.2014 says that the map was not sanctioned rather it is the case of the respondents that the signatures of Assistant Engineer and Office Assistant are not present and the issue register does not indicate that the map was issued, thus the map was antedated. It is stated that in case, the Commissioner was so sanguine about the map being forged, nothing had prevented him from lodging a criminal case.