Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prasoon Sinha representing the Patna Municipal Corporation.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief/s:—

"The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of Letter No. 14515 dated 28.11.2023 issued by the Land Estate Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been asked to deposit Rs. 61,25,689 (Sixty One Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Nine) for transfer/mutation of their names in place of the vendors of the petitioners from whom the petitioners have purchased Plot No. 157, Block-B, Type-C, area 377.22 Sq. yards situated in Rajendra Nagar area of Patna town. Further the petitioners humbly pray that the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation may be directed to transfer the names of the petitioners in place of their vendors without insisting for depositing illegal and arbitrary fee. The petitioners also pray for any other relief(s) that the petitioners are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Yet another case, this time a couple as aggrieved persons, once again the demand notice, the issue remains the same, whether the Patna Municipal Corporation (henceforth for short 'the PMC') is entitled to demand 'labhansh' (dividend) as per the agreement that was entered into by the parties in the year 1967 with regard to a plot no. 157, Rajendra Nagar, Block No. B (Type C) (admeasuring an area of 377.22 square yards) in the District of Patna which went to the share of Dr. Ranvir Kumar from the original allottee, Punya Kala Sinha or not.

4. The undisputed facts are that the original allottee was Punya Kala Sinha with whom an agreement was made. It is to be noted that in terms of Rule 20 of the Patna Regional Development Authority, Rules 1978 (henceforth for short 'the Rules'), the plots that were leased out to the allottee, Vide clause 11 of the lease deed, there was restriction on the subsequent transfer and the said clause read as follows:

"Clause 11: 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 aforesaid plot including the structure constructed thereon or the right, title or interest therein, but, no such consent shall be required in matters of gift in favour of an heir of relation or of Will in respect of the said properties."

5. This Court would also like to incorporate Rule 20 of 'the 1978 Rules' which read as follows:

"Transfer of land leased by the Authority. No plot or part thereof leased by the Authority shall be transferred by sale or gift within a period of ten years from the date of lease without the permission of the Authority:

Provided that the intention to transfer of land along with the conditions of lease shall be indicated in writing to the Authority well in time before the transfer of the land takes place even in cases where a period of ten years have expired:

Provided further that the Authority shall have the first right to resume the land aftor reimbursing the premium paid by the allottee together with an interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the premium paid by the allottee:

Further that where the Authority grants permission for the transfer of land, the allottee shall pay a mutation fee equal to 50 per cent of excess of sale premium paid by him. price over the This however, shall not be less than 10 per cent of the premium charged by the Authority by leasing out the plot:

Provided further that the bifurcation of any land property leased by the Authority shall not take place or its use converted from the use for which the land was leased without the prior approval of the Authority as required under Section 32 of the Ordinance."

6. The two petitioners herein, a couple, b