then
Patna Regional Development Authority (now dissolved)
(henceforth for short 'the PRDA' in their favour. He submits
that a decade later, letter ... deed of lease, i.e.. Annexure-1.
Thus, in my opinion the PRDA
cannot ask the allottee to part with 50% of
the earned amount
Patna High Court passed in Anup
Kumar Vs., PRDA & others as well as the
sanctioned map".
17. So far as the questioning
Sanjay
Singh (supra) is incorporated hereinbelow:-
"Thus, in my opinion the PRDA
cannot ask the allottee to part with 50% of
the earned amount ... even in view of the Rule
20 of PRDA (Disposal of Land) Rules 1978
also as that would be required only if the
Patna High
deed of lease, i.e.. Annexure-1.
Thus, in my opinion the PRDA
cannot ask the allottee to part with 50% of
the earned amount ... even in view of the Rule
20 of PRDA (Disposal of Land) Rules 1978
also as that would be required only if the
transfer
Meanwhile, the erstwhile Patna Regional
Development Authority (henceforth for short 'the PRDA') also
instituted Vigilance Case No. 01/1991 against the proposed
construction ... that in view of the restrained order of 'the erstwhile PRDA'
(now the Patna Municipal Corporation) as contained in
Annexure
deed of lease, i.e.. Annexure-1.
Thus, in my opinion the PRDA cannot
ask the allottee to part with 50% of the earned
amount ... even in view of the Rule 20 of PRDA
(Disposal of Land) Rules 1978 also as that would
be required only if the transfer
cuok;s] tks Hkou mifof/k ,oa PRDA/ fcgkj
ljdkj }kjk uD"kk ikfjr gksus dh frfFk ds fnu
izHkkoh funsZ"kksa
issued by PRDA to the
appellants and direct the PMC to pay a sum
of Rs. Two lacs to each of the appellants
payment part was concerned in view of
Rule 20 of the PRDA (Disposal of land Rules 1978) it was
incorporated that only if the transfer
dividend for the
transfer of the land belonging to the erstwhile PRDA (now the
Patna Municipal Corporation).
3. A detailed order was passed
