SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Pat) 530

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N. JHA & M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
Rajendra Pd. Sinha & Others - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Bihar & ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 172 of 1988
Decided on : 21.8.1996

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : M/s Ram Suresh Roy, Arjun Prasad Singh and Abhay Kumar Roy.
For the Respondents: None.

The settlement of public land by the Bihar State Housing Board must be in the public interest and cannot be used to serve the private interests of individuals.

Headnote:

PUBLIC ROAD - SETTLEMENT - ENCROACHMENT - RELAY OUT OF PLAN - PUBLIC INTEREST - BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD ACT, 1972 - SECTIONS 29(B) AND 46 - INTERPRETATION - VALIDITY OF SETTLEMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Fact of the Case:

The Bihar State Housing Board settled a piece of land, designated as MIGH 126A, with respondent no. 6, which included a portion of a public road. The writ petitioners, who were owners of adjacent properties, challenged the settlement, arguing that it encroached upon the public road and reduced its width from 20 feet to 10 feet. The Board contended that it had the authority to re-lay out the plan under Section 29(b) of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1972, and that the settlement was in the public interest.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the settlement of MIGH 126A included a portion of the public road, as evidenced by the fact that the width of the road was reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet. The court also found that the Board's decision to settle the land was not in the public interest, as it served the private interest of respondent no. 6 at the cost of the public's right to use the road.

Issues: 1. Whether the Bihar State Housing Board had the authority to settle a piece of land that included a portion of a public road? 2. Whether the settlement of MIGH 126A was in the public interest?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Board had the authority to re-lay out the plan under Section 29(b) of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1972. However, the court also held that the Board's decision to settle MIGH 126A was not in the public interest, as it served the private interest of respondent no. 6 at the cost of the public's right to use the road. 2. The court held that the settlement of MIGH 126A was not in the public interest because it encroached upon the public road and reduced its width from 20 feet to 10 feet. The court also found that the Board's decision to settle the land was based on bogus, untenable, and collusive opinions and reports of 'friendly' officers of the Board.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, and quashed the settlement of MIGH 126A to the extent of the encroachment of the road portion. The Board was directed to demolish any structure, whether permanent or temporary, standing on the impugned portion within four weeks.

JUDGMENT

S. N. Jha, J. - This letters patent appeal is by the unsuccessful writ petitioners. They had filed the writ petition, C.W.J.C. No.333 of 1982, for setting aside the order of the Chairman, Bihar State Housing Board, ('the Board' in short), and the consequential settlement of a piece of land, numbered as plot no. 126A, extending over portion of public road in 'U' Sector of Kankarbagh Colony, one of the quarters of Patna Town, in favour of respondent no.6, Smt. Mahalakshmi Devi. The facts of the case, shortly stated, are as follows.

2. The Housing Department of the Government of Bihar prepared a plan for development of a housing colony at Kankarbagh in the year 1966-67. The area was divided into several sectors. In Sector 'U' provision was made for a park surrounded by roads on all sides. While the road running on the southern side of the park was to have width of 40ft., the roads on other sides including the northern side were to be 30ft. wide. The Housing Department constructed houses of different types meant for different categories of applicants, such as High Income Group (HIG) Category, Middle Income Group (MIG) Category and so on. MIGH Nos. 125 and 124 were initially settled with the two writ petitioners on rental basis. They came in possession of the respective houses in December, 1968 and January, 1969. In course of time, the Bihar State Housing Board was established under the Bihar State Housing Board Ordinance/Act in 1972. The two houses were settled in favour of the writ petitioners on hire-purchase basis on 1.7.1974. MIGH 126 which is situate south of MIGH Nos.124 and 125, across the road, intervened by a strip of land called residuary plot, was settled in favour of respondent no.6.

3. According to the writ petitioners as the road in question running between MIGH Nos. 125 and 124 (Up to MIGH 119) on south and MIGH 126 and park on north was not being metalled by the Board, a joint petition was tiled by the owners of MIGH Nos. 119 to 125 to the Chief Engineer of the Board of 17.7.1979. They thereafter learnt on 27.12.1979 that attempt was being made to settle the aforesaid piece of residuary land situate adjacent north of MIGH 126 by encroaching upon portion of the public road on north of it-running east to west-in favour of respondent no.6. They made representation before the Chairman of the Board not to settle any portion of the road in favour of any individual. After a some-what long drawn process (details whereof are not necessary for the purpose of this appeal), when all attempts to stall the settlement of the said residuary land along with portion of road proved futile, the writ petitioners preferred a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, C.W.J.C. No. 1262 of 1981, in this Court on 17.4.81. In that writ petition the Board filed counter affidavit denying that there was any attempt to settle the land with any individual. In view of the stand of the Board, the writ petition was dismissed on 12.5.1981 with observation that the petitioners had no cause of action for the present and when such cause of action arises they may move the Court again. Notwithstanding the aforesaid stand, the officers of the Board proceeded with the process of settlement and ultimately the piece of land, numbered as MIGH 126A was settled with respondent no.6. Deed of settlement was executed on 21.10.81 and registered on 22.10.81.

4. From the certified copy of the aforesaid deed copy whereof is at Annexure 15 to the writ petition, it appears that the dimensions of MIGH 126A were shown as 86 ft. east to west on the northern side, 89 ft. 3 inches east to west on southern side, 37ft. north to south on eastern side and 13ft. north to south• on western side. It is relevant to mention here that according to the lay-out of the plots as shown in the Master Plan, the said residuary land (which was later converted into MIGH No. 126A) had a width of only 13 ft. on eastern side, 3 ft. on the western side and length of about 45 ft.






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top