The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation lacked jurisdiction to cancel the lease and that the Cooperative Society should have been noticed and heard before any such action.

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation). Shri Arun Kumar, Advocate, submitted that he appears on behalf of the original complainant at whose behest the Corporation has passed the impugned order. No Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Kumar. Nonetheless the Court permitted him to address.

2. The Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter called the P.R.D.A.) on 12.3.1984 granted a lease for plot no. 12C measuring 3200 square feet situated in the prime location of Srikrishnapuri area of Patna town for construction of commercial-cum-residential building to the Alaknanda Co-operative Housing Society Limited, registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act bearing Reg. No. 257 dated 29.12.1951 (hereinafter called the Co-operative Society). The Co-operative Society on 7.5.1985 transferred the lands to the petitioners described as members of the Society in the transfer deed. Constructions are stated to have been raised upon the lands.

3. The P.R.D.A. was superseded by the Corporation on enactment of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. The Corporation by the impugned order dated 6.4.2011 cancelled the lease granted by the P.R.D.A. to the Co-operative Society. The Society was neither noticed nor heard. The Corporation questioned and adjudicated the status of the petitioners to membership of the Society holding the transfer made to them as being contrary to conditions of the lease and failure to complete construction within three years. Symbolic possession is stated to have been taken by the Corporation on 6.5.2011 by putting a lock on the gate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no part of the lease agreement has been violated. The lease deed permitted transfer by the Co-operative Society to its members. Due intimation was made for transfer to the P.R.D.A. on 8.5.1985. Completion of construction within three years was not mandatory but extendable and which has been complied with. Building plan No.116/85 applied on 14.3.1985 was sanctioned on 14.10.1985. The petitioners raised constructions and mutation was done in their favour. Rent receipts were granted and taxed vide Case No. 553/97-98 by the D.C.L.R. Subsequently revised building plan was filed on 17.1.2001 numbered as 202/01 after the existing structure was demolished. Certain objections were raised on behalf of the P.R.D.A. at site inspection done on 17.1.2002. A fresh building plan was submitted numbered as S.K. Puri P.R.N.47/ 2010. The impugned order wrongly contends that the constructions had not been raised within the time fixed in the lease. The impugned order seeks to question the actions of the Society in transferring the lands to its members. The Corporation lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue which vests in the Registrar Co-operative Societies alone. The Society has not been noticed or heard. The petitioners are unnecessarily being hounded by interested persons for oblique purposes.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Cooperative Society could not have transferred the lands to the petitioners without permission. The petitioners were not bona fide members of the Co-operative Society but were the wife and daughter of the Secretary. A clarification had been sought from the Secretary of the Co-operative Society under which provision of the lease the Society had transferred the lands to the individual persons-. A status report had been sought from the Co-operative Society. The Society had indulged in a lot of wrong doings. At a stage an Administrator had to be appointed. The transfers to the petitioners were in contravention of the Co-operative laws and the Secretary of the Co-operative Society was not competent to do so. The Corporation had written to the Co-operative authorities vide letter No. 2306 dated 24.9.2010. The construction was not raised within thre