The High Court at Patna quashed a direction prohibiting construction on a specific plot as the State failed to file a counter-affidavit explaining its legality, allowing the writ application while reserving the Circle Officer's right to issue a proper notice with a hearing.
Annexure-9 is quashed. This writ application is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7351 of 1991
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhu Sudan Kr.Sinha Mr. Pramod Mishra Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mr. Dinesh Choudhary Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav Mr. Hriday Kant Mishra Mr. Arbind Prasad Verma Mr. Surendra Kumar Mr. Md.Iftekhar Mohammad Mr. Yogendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s : None
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER
9 01-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the State.
This writ application was filed when in terms of annexure-9 dated 9.8.1991 a direction was issued by the Circle Officer, Nabi Nagar that the erstwhile petitioner will not make any construction on Khata No. 54, plot no. 869 having an area of 5
Patna High Court CWJC No.7351 of 1991 (9) dt.01-10-2012
2
decimals situated in Nabinagar town.
The stand of the petitioners is that the property belongs to them. They do not understand the facts and circumstances under which the Circle Officer passed such a directive. It is evident from reading of annexure-9 that based on a wireless communication no. 1158 dated 8.8.1991 of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Aurangabad such a directive was issued against the erstwhile petitioner.
In all these years of pendency of this writ application, the State authorities have not bothered to file any counter affidavit and explain the legality of such a direction or the reason thereof.
In that view of the matter, annexure-9 is quashed. This writ application is allowed. However, if the circumstance and the situation still prevails, the Circle Officer will be free to issue notice to the petitioners, give them an opportunity of hearing and then take appropriate decision in this regard.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
Amin/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the direction issued by the Circle Officer prohibiting construction on a specific plot should be quashed due to lack of counter-affidavit and facts.
Smt. Prabha Devi and Others
The State of Bihar
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
