IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10471 of 2001
===========================================================
Dineshwar Nath Sahay, S/o Late Raghu Nath Sahay, R/o Qr. No. E-48, Ranchi
Colony P.V.C. at P.O.-Naithandam, District-Dhanbad. At present R/o-C/o Sri
S.P.Srivastava, Dwari Nath Lane, Salimpur Ahra, District-Patna.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Patel Marg, Patna through its Managing Director.
3. Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Division-2 Bahadurpur (Bhut
Nath Ashram Kankarbagh Colony), Patna.
4. Additional Secretary -cum-Manager Estates, Government of Bihar.
…. …. Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate.
For the Board : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
22nd June 2011
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one
Dineshwar Nath Sahay, an allottee of a piece of land Plot No. 3H/31
admeasuring 1875 Sq. Ft. in Higher Income Group in Digha Housing
Project of the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Board’).
It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he had applied for
the allotment of a plot of land as far back as in the year 1972. The
above referred plot of land was allotted to the petitioner on 25th
September 1991, but till the date of the petition, possession of the said
land was not handed over to the petitioner in accordance with the
agreement. The petitioner has therefore, prayed that the respondents be
Patna High Court CWJC No.10471 of 2001 dt.22-06-2011
2
directed to hand over the vacant plot of land to the petitioner as agreed
or he may be refunded the money paid by him with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum with compensation as suggested by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
We do appreciate the plight of the writ petitioner. However on
the facts of the present case, we are unable to grant any relief to the writ
petitioner. In support of the pleadings the petitioner has not produced
any material. Neither the letter of allotment of land nor the agreement
he seeks to enforce; nor the evidence of transfer of money. In absence
of any material before us, there being no response either from the State
Government or the Board, the mandamus as prayed for cannot be
issued.
In fact the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for
recovery of possession of land or for recovery of money cannot lie. The
only remedy available to the writ petitioner would be a suit for specific
performance of the alleged agreement or for recovery of money.
For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of this petition. We may
clarify that we have not examined the correctness of the claim made by
the petitioner. The petitioner may avail of the remedy legally available
to him for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner may also choose to
approach the Board for refund of the money paid by him with interest.
If such application is made, the Board will consider and dispose of the
same. Any order of the Board, if adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner
will have liberty to challenge the same before appropriate Forum.
Subject to the above observations, the petition stands disposed
of.
(R.M.Doshit, CJ)
Patna High Court
Dated the 22nd June 2011
NAFR/Sujit (Birendra Prasad Verma,J)