K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—Read order of even date passed at 10.45 A.M.

2. As directed in the said order, the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation and the S.H.O., Kotwali Police Station are before us. Sri Anjani Kumar, learned AAG-IV is also present with learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent- Patna Municipal Corporation. The printed copy of the WhatsApp communication received by the Commissioner as extracted from his Mobile Phone is produced herewith as Court Exhibit-C-1. We examined the Commissioner on oath, which deposition is annexed to the instant order as Court Exhibit-C-2.

3. The writ petition was filed alleging that the petitioner had been in possession of a land by virtue of sale deed dated 02.06.1987 produced as Annexure-5. The land on which the petitioner claimed title as per Annexure-5, was having Municipal Survey Plot No. 8, Ward No.34, Circle No.235, Holding No. 124/175 admeasuring 1989 sq.ft., the boundaries of which land are as below:—

North : P.A.C. 10 feet wide service road and Pearl Cinema House.

South : Proposed P.A.C. Road

East : Plot No. 9

West : Plot No. 4 & 7

4. The allegation was that, despite her continued possession, based on title, the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation was proceeding for demolition of the building and has already demolished a portion of the commercial building situated over the land. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 31.08.2022.

5. Learned Single Judge initially observed that there were disputed questions of fact, which would not be possible of resolution under Article 226. However, on the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner emphatically requesting for an adjudication, the matter was considered, based on the materials on record.

6. On the brief history of the transactions with respect to the subject land, it is to be noticed that the Secretary of the State, the predecessor of the State of Bihar had granted a lease of 125190 sq.ft. land to the Patna Administrative Committee for a term of 50 years, renewable for a further period of 50 years. The Patna Administrative Committee was superseded by the Patna Municipal Corporation. The said land was sub-leased in favour of Sri Dharma Das Sarkar with effect from 20.10.1951 for a period of 30 years, with the option of renewal, restricted to the period of lease granted by the State. The lease granted required erection of a building on the land within one year, as per specification available in the sanction letter of the Government. Sri Dharma Das Sarkar transferred the holding bearing Plot No.19, Holding No. 119/151, Circle No. 235 in favour of Sri Jagar Nath Prasad as on 27.12.1973. It is asserted on the strength of Annexure-2 that Patna Municipal Corporation had also permitted the transfer.

7. Here, it is to be specifically noticed that though the petitioner claimed title and possession over Plot No.8, the transfer as seen from Annexure-2 was of Plot No. 19 though No. ‘8’ is also interpolated; which is in hand.

8. Be that as it may, Sri Jagar Nath Prasad was conveyed the subject land with permission from the Patna Municipal Corporation, as evident from Annexure-2 and he transferred it to the petitioner, both of whom have obtained mutation of the land in their respective names. The petitioner is in uninterrupted possession, continuing from the date of Annexure-5, holding the land and also the commercial building situated thereon.

9. The immediate cause of action arose for the petitioner when the Patna Municipal Corporation demolished a portion of the building existing in the land and there was an interim order passed on 25.06.2019. Learned Single Judge, who heard the matter finally, looked into the records and found that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and hence, she was not entitled to the discretionary remedy under Article 226. The said observation of the learned Single Judge rested mainly on the interpolation made in Annexure-2 and the typed agreement brought on record as a tru