The appellate authority under section 60 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, has wide powers to pass such orders as it thinks fit and proper, and its orders are given statutory finality. The court will not interfere with such orders unless they are perverse or patently unreasonable.

A.K. Ganguly, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director challenging inter alia the validity of the order passed in a proceeding under section 59 of the Act. The said order is dated 25.2.1986 passed in Case No. 66/82/21/83 as the application of the petitioner for eviction of respondent no. 4 from the plot in question was not granted by the competent authority in proceeding u/s. 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act; 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), an appeal was filed u/s. 60 of the said Act by the petitioner. The appellate authority ageeing with the findings of the competent authority dismissed the appeal with certain directions. Both these orders have been impugned as Annexures - 2 and 3 to this writ petition by the petitioner Board.

2. Before considering the legality of those orders, the admitted facts of the case, as it appears from the petition filed by the Housing Board, are noted below:-

The dispute arises out of plot no. 326, khata no. 85 area measuring about 209.10 sq. mtrs. situated at Bahadurpur, Section-I at present under the occupation of respondent no. 4. The facts as alleged in the writ petition is that plot no. 326 and some other plots, consisting of an area of 227.78 acres of land in village Bahadurpur, Thana no. 10. Thana-Patna City, was acquired by the petitioner-Board for the purpose of developing M.I.G. plots in sector I, II and IV of Bahadurpur.

3. The case of the petitioner-Board is that in respect of the aforesaid plots a land acquisition proceeding was initiated and in connection with the said acquisition proceeding possession was handed over to the petitioner-Board in the year 1977. But the Board found that the plot in question, namely, plot no. 326 which according to it falls within the said acquired land, was in occupation of respondent no. 4. As respondent no. 4 did not vacate the said plot the aforesaid eviction proceeding was initiated by the Board before the competent authority.

4. The case of respondent no. 4 is that in respect to the said plot there is an agreement of sale which was executed on 21st May, 1969 and on the basis of the said agreement of sale, possession was handed over to respondent no. 4 in the year, 1970. It is stated that the respondent no. 4 has constructed a house on the said plot of land in 1974. It is also the case of the respondent no. 4 that no notice was ever given to him in the said acquisition proceeding even though he is in possession of the plot in question since 1970, which is prior to initiation of such proceeding. As such it cannot be said that respondent no. 4 is in an unauthorised occupation. On these facts, the writ petition was filed complaining of Annexures-2 and 3 as stated above.

5. In this proceeding a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4. In the said counter affidavit a stand has been taken by respondent no. 4 that he came in possession of the land in question on 21st May, 1970 and service of notice on him in respect to the land acquisition proceeding was never made. The further stand taken by respondent no. 4 is that the land in question was never acquired In accordance with law, in as much as, respondent no. 4 is the both owner and occupier of the land in question and was never served with a notice nor was ever awarded with compensation. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that Annexures-2 and 3 have been passed by the two authorities in a quasi judicial proceeding and those orders have been passed validly on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and this Court ought not to interfere with the same.

6. This Court has also perused section 59 of the said Act. Admittedly, under section 59 of the said Act, a proceeding was initiated by the petitioner-Board. Section 59 of the said Act provides for a summary procedure for eviction and recovery of rents. The procedure contemplated under section 59 of the said Act is a special procedure provid