Disposed

Madhuri Sahi @ Madhuri Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Mar 2016CWJC/12100/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking transfer of an industrial plot due to non-utilization and subsequent apprehension about denial of possession. Directions were issued to ensure possession transfer within four weeks at the assessed rate.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to file a representation to ensure possession of the allotted plot is made over within four weeks.

Madhuri Sahi @ Madhuri Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12100 of 2013

¶3

=========================================================== Madhuri Sahi @ Madhuri Devi Daughter of Ram Nath Sahi Proprietor of M/S Madhuri Arts WZ-105 Naraina, Village Police Station Narayana, New Delhi, District New Delhi

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through Director Industries Bihar Patna

¶7

The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Ist Floor Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan Patna, Police Station Gandhi Maidan, Patna, District Patna

¶8

The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Regional Office, Bela Police Station Bela Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

===========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-03-2016

¶12

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶13

The petitioner was an applicant for allotment of plot/land

¶14

in the industrial area for installation of an Industrial Unit. On consideration of the claim, plot no. M.S. 7, 8, measuring an area of 1000 sq. fit was allotted to the petitioner on 05.09.2011. The petitioner did not take step for setting up of the industry which propelled the BIADA to change the plot of the petitioner in order to adjust another applicant, who was willing to install the Unit and make it functional. This change in the plot was ordered by the Executive Director of the respondent BIADA vide order dated 24.04.2013 (Annexure-7) which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

¶15

It has been submitted that though the plot was allotted in the year 2009-2011, but actual physical possession was not given to

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.12100 of 2013 dt.03-03-2016

¶17

2/2

¶18

him. The counsel for the petitioner states that even if the change in the plot is allowed to be made, it apprehends that actual physical possession thereover shall not be given to the petitioner.

¶19

Mr. Lal conversely states that the change in the plot was necessitated, on account of the failure of the petitioner to install the industry, soon after allotment of the land. Secondly, the plot allotted to the petitioner is adjacent to the plot/land allotted to her husband.

¶20

This Court would not go into the said aspect of the matter. However, as apprehension has been raised by the petitioner that the possession of the plot allotted to the petitioner (Annexure-7) shall not be made over to the writ petitioner by the respondent BIADA. The application is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a representation, in this regard, before the Managing Director/Executive Director, BIADA to ensure that the petitioner is given possession over the plot which has been allotted by the order of the BIADA (Annexure-7), if not already given, within four weeks of such filing, at the rate/value at which, it was directed to be made over to the petitioner under Annexure-7.

¶21

The writ application stands disposed of with aforesaid directions/observation(s).

¶22

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶23

rohit/-

¶24

Madhuri Sahi @ Madhuri Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri Sahi @ Madhuri Devi 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Rajak Vs Tata Motors Ltd. and Ors.

Raj Kishore Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar Mishra @ Rajeev Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar

Pratigya Housing Finance and Construction Company Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arbind Kumar Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Swaroop Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.