Dismissed

Krishna Kumar Sinha v. the Bihar State Housing BOARDand

Patna HC15 Oct 2012CWJC/2624/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allotment of land to a private respondent. The single-judge bench held the application lacked bona fides as the petitioner attempted to convert his existing M.I.G. plot status to claim a different class of land. The plea was rejected as having no merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed as having no merit due to lack of bona fides.

Krishna Kumar Sinha Vs the Bihar State Housing BOARDand — Property and Title | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2624 of 2007

¶3

====================================================== Krishna Kumar Sinha son of late Dr. Ram Kumar Lal resident of 2-M/5, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Chairman, 6, Mangles Road, Patna.

¶7

1. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Mangles Road, Patna.

¶8

1. The Managing-cum-Estate Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Mangles Road, Patna.

¶9

1. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 5. Ramkali Devi wife of Braj Nandan Paswan resident of 2-H/17, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna at present residing at Mohalla Prahladpur, P.O. Prahladpur, P.S.Ghoshbari, District Patna.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. J. S. Arora, Mr. Dhurjati K.Prasad Mr. K.C. K. Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshuman Singh For Respondent no. 5 : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 5 15-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board and learned counsel for private respondent no. 5. Petitioner has challenged the so called allotment or settlement of extra piece of land to private respondent no. 5 by the Bihar State Housing Board which he claims had a right over in terms of the policy of settlement of Chhitput land and which has been under occupation of the petitioner for a long time. Since the respondent Housing Board is not willing to accept his request or prayer, present writ application has been filed for cancellation of

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.2624 of 2007 (5) dt.15-10-2012

¶13

¶14

the settlement made in favour of private respondent no. 5 as well as for a direction for settlement in his favour.

¶15

Petitioner had been agitating the issue earlier as well, may be against the action initiated by the Housing Board to remove him from the piece and parcel of land which he had occupied. Eviction proceeding was initiated. The authority found him to be encroaching upon the Housing Board land and the above finding was even upheld by the appellate authority against which the petitioner came in a writ application. A very detailed order contained in annexure-7 came to be passed by the learned single Judge which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. Order thereof is annexure-8 to the writ application.

¶16

Even though the earlier writ application was filed against his eviction from the piece and parcel of land but the background and the issue from which the present dispute arises is identical and is clearly evident from a reading of the order of the learned Single Judge. Petitioner was allotted an M.I.G. plot of land. Private respondent no. 5, who is the present occupier on transfer is in possession of a H.I.G. piece and parcel of land. There is a clear finding by the learned Single Judge that there is no land available for allotment and even otherwise the present petitioner cannot claim or demand settlement of a piece and parcel of land belonging to H.I.G. category.

¶17

Obviously, petitioner is not satisfied with such

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.2624 of 2007 (5) dt.15-10-2012

¶19

¶20

observation and taking advantage of an observation of the Division Bench that he may challenge the decision of the Housing board separately has filed the present writ application.

¶21

After hearing the parties to the dispute, the Court is of the opinion that the present writ application lacks bona fide. There is no piece and parcel of land which has been allotted to private respondent no. 5. The allotment in question on which petitioner has an eagle eye was made as far back as in 1981 in favour of yet another allottee, namely, Sri Hari Shankar Prasad and thereafter on the basis of a tripartite agreement the said land was transferred in favour of private respondent no. 5. Therefore, settlement, if any, or allotment was part and parcel of 1981 transaction and petitioner came into picture on the basis of allotment made in his favour in the year 1985. Obviously, he has no right to claim and the present writ application is, obviously, an effort to convert his M.I.G. plot into a H.I.G. plot by whatever means he can have within the ambit of the writ application.

¶22

This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.

¶23

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶24

Amin/-

Krishna Kumar Sinha v. the Bihar State Housing BOARDand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Sinha v. the Bihar State Housing BOARDand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Braj Raj Srivastava Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Murshid Alam Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Vinay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Seva Bharti Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Kapildeo Prasad Sinha Vs the Bihar State Housing BOARDand