Disposed

Smt. Dharmashila Kumari Mishra and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Feb 2013MJC/5592/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous application seeking modification of a writ petition regarding a vigilance case and land dispute, the Court declined to decide merits, directed exhaustion of remedies before the Appellate Tribunal, and extended the status quo for eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pursue remedy before Appellate Tribunal; status quo extended for eight weeks.

Smt. Dharmashila Kumari Mishra and Ors… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court MJC No.5592 of 2012 (4) dt.06-02-2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5592 of 2012

¶4

====================================================== 1. Smt. Dharmashila Kumari Mishra W/O Sri V.N. Mishra Resident Of North Patliputra Colony - Gosain Tola Road, Near Usha Apartments, P.S. Patliputra, Panta. 2. Smt. Urmila Chandra W/O Sri Ram Dayal Prasad Resident Of North Patliputra Colony - Gosain Tola Road, Near Usha Apartments, P.S. Patliputra, Panta. 3. Satyendra Narain Rai S/O Late Manki Prasad Rai Resident Of North Patliputra Colony - Gosain Tola Road, Near Usha Apartments, P.S. Patliputra, Panta. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. Patna Municipal Corporation Through Its Municipal Commissioner, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anju Kumari @ Anju Narain For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 06-02-2013 The petitioners seek modification of the order dated 24.8.2012 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.16018 of 2009. In the writ petition the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 14.9.2009 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna in Vigilance Case No.652-A/06 initiated by the erstwhile PRDA, the predecessor of Municipal Corporation.

¶5

The petitioners state that they purchased lands in question in Mauza Mainpura, P.S. Patliputra town, District Patna and made construction of residential flat with a common motorable Rasta for

¶6

Patna High Court MJC No.5592 of 2012 (4) dt.06-02-2013

¶7

¶8

their exclusive usage. The constructions were made about 20 years back. The petitioners state that during last 5-6 years a multistoried building came on plot nos.628 and 629 west of the brick built boundary wall of the petitioners. The petitioners alleged before the P.R.D.A. that construction is being made on plot nos. 628 and 629 in violation of bye-laws. Initially some follow up measure was taken by the P.R.D.A. which subsequently became dormant. This Court directed the Patna Municipal Corporation to conclude the Vigilance Case and any construction within condonable limit may be condoned.

¶9

The stand of the respondents was that the land on which they are making construction belonged to them and they are willing to leave half of the land required for the road on their side.

¶10

The petitioners submit that in fact the respondents have made construction on their land and there is hardly any land for them to leave for the construction of the road. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation directed the petitioners to leave land on their side for the road which the they have already left and leaving further land for the road would not be only unfair but would amount to demolition of part of their construction. This Court granted liberty to the petitioners to seek alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 329 of the

¶11

Patna High Court MJC No.5592 of 2012 (4) dt.06-02-2013

¶12

¶13

Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.

¶14

The petitioners have filed the instant application stating that the Tribunal was not functioning effectively inasmuch as the post of Presiding officer was vacant.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 5 and 6 submits that now the Presiding Officer has joined and the Tribunal is functioning properly.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this court may hear the dispute itself.

¶17

As I have already remitted the matter for being filed by way of statutory appeal, I do not find any reason to change my earlier view. The petitioners may pursue their remedy before the Appellate Court which would sympathetically consider the condonation of delay as they were pursuing the instant application before this court.

¶18

The order of status quo, in respect of petitioners’ premises, granted earlier by order dated 24.8.2012 is extended by further eight weeks from today.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.

¶20

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

¶21

KHAN/-

Smt. Dharmashila Kumari Mishra and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dharmashila Kumari Mishra and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Das and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Parash Nath Mishra and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Indu Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Krishna Sharma Vs Ram Janam Singh and Ors.

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs Manju Sinha and Ors.

Pramod Mahto and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.