I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, the Patna Municipal Corporation as well as respondent nos.7 and 8.

2. Through this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 15.6.2011 contained in Memo No.2824 dated 14.7.2011 issued by the Estate Officer of Patna Municipal Corporation (respondent no.3) addressed to the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 (Annexure-5) informing them that since they have transferred Plot No.309/B (Block B) situated in Rajendra Nagar, Patna in violation of the terms and conditions described in the deed of lease as well as also in violation of Rule 20 of the P.R.D.A. (Disposal of Land Rules), 1978, without prior permission of the concerned authority, mutation of the transferee pursuant to such transfer can only be allowed after they deposit 50% of the amount which they have earned on sale of the concerned land to be calculated at the rate fixed by the Government within 15 days failing which action would also be taken under Sections 20 and 22 of the aforesaid Rules for cancellation of the allotment.

3. It is submitted that Plot No.309(B) of Mohalla Rajendra Nagar in Block No.B, Type-B of a total area of about 663.25 sqr. yards was settled in favour of father of the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 for about 99 years on lease by the Patna Improvement Trust on 28.2.1961 in consideration of premium of Rs.10,307.39/-. In Clause-3 of the deed of lease, which has been appended as Annexure-1, it has been stated that the settlement would be subject to the strict observance by the second party of the provisions of Patna Improvement Trust (Disposal of Land) Rules 1957. A restriction was imposed vide Clause-12 of the deed of lease that except with the previous consent of the first party in writing and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the first party, the second party shall have no right within ten years of the date of this indenture to transfer by way of sale, exchange or otherwise the plot concerned including the structures constructed thereon or the right, title or interest therein, however, no such consent should be required in the matters of gift in favour of an heir or relation or of Will in respect of the said properties.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this restriction was only for a period of ten years from the date of execution of the deed of lease and the transfer having been made in the year 2010, i.e., much beyond ten years, there was no restriction at all upon the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 in making such transfer in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has further transferred the plot in favour of respondent nos.7 and 8 in the year 2011. It is urged that the communication as contained in Annexure-5, thus, does not have any legal basis and as such that is fit to be quashed.

5. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.7 and 8.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Patna Municipal Corporation has submitted that Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 stood repealed in view of the enforcement of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981. It is contended that since its enforcement every transfer within the area covered under the Act would be governed by the provisions contained therein as well as the Rules framed under it.

7. It is submitted that prior to that, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-2(a) of Section 79 of Bihar Regional Development Authority Second Ordinance, 1978, the State Government had framed rules namely Patna Regional Development Authority (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1978, which was accepted and remained in force even after coming of the aforesaid Act.

8. Learned counsel drew attention towards Rule 20 of the P.R.D.A. (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1978 to impress upon this Court that no plot or apart thereof could have been transferred by sale or gift without permission of the authority and fu