{"id":252592,"date":"2011-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-08-02T12:37:32","modified_gmt":"2016-08-02T07:07:32","slug":"bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Gokhale<\/div>\n
                                                                       REPORTABLE\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5779  OF 2008\n\n\n\n\nBihar State Housing Board & Ors.                           .... Appellant (s)\n\n\n\n             Versus\n\n\n\nAsha Lata Verma                                         .... Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                            J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)    This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final   judgment   and <\/p>\n
order   dated   02.07.2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of <\/p>\n
Judicature   at   Patna   in   L.P.A.   No.   211   of   2008   whereby   the <\/p>\n
Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere with the <\/p>\n
order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned single Judge of <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   in   CWJC   No.   11753   of   2007   and   disposed   of <\/p>\n
the appeal filed by the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
2)    Brief facts:\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            1<\/span>\n\n\n(a)    In   1972,   the   Bihar   State   Housing   Board   (hereinafter \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
referred to as “the Board”) floated a Scheme for construction of <\/p>\n
Flats   for   Middle   Income   Group   (in   short   “MIG”)   at   Hanuman <\/p>\n
Nagar, Patna.       Ram Chandra Prasad   Verma (since expired) <\/p>\n
-the   husband   of   the   respondent   submitted   his   application.\n<\/p>\n
Subsequently,   on   demand   being   made,   on   28.09.1978,   he <\/p>\n
deposited   a   sum   of   Rs.6500\/-   for   allotment   of   a   MIG <\/p>\n
flat\/house.  The allotment fructified in his favour and MIG Flat <\/p>\n
No.   171,   Hanuman   Nagar,   Patna   was   allotted   to   him   vide <\/p>\n
Board’s Order No. 7273 dated 23.09.1981.   After execution of <\/p>\n
hire-purchase   agreement,  the   possession   was   handed   over   to <\/p>\n
him   on   28.11.1981.     At   that   time,   the   total   cost   of   the   flat <\/p>\n
determined by the Board was Rs.66,382\/-.  The entire amount <\/p>\n
was paid to the Board within the time prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
(b)     On 25.03.1991, the husband of the respondent died and <\/p>\n
in   the   year   1992,   she   sought   for   transfer   of   the   Flat   in   her <\/p>\n
name.  The flat was transferred in the name of the respondent <\/p>\n
after   furnishing   the   details   of   payment   and   other   required <\/p>\n
documents   to   the   Board   vide   letter   No.   1459   dated <\/p>\n
05.05.1998.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
(c)    Later   on,   the   respondent   decided   to   transfer   the   flat   in <\/p>\n
favour   of   her   daughter-in-law,   Ms.   Meera   Verma   and   sought <\/p>\n
transfer of the same.  At this time, the Board raised a demand <\/p>\n
of Rs. 3,64,419\/- towards outstanding dues against the flat in <\/p>\n
question   vide   Letter   No.   2169   dated   29.06.2006,   asking   the <\/p>\n
respondent to deposit the same by 31.07.2006.\n<\/p>\n
(d)    Against the said demand notice, the respondent filed writ <\/p>\n
petition   bearing   CWJC   No.   11753   of   2007   before   the   High <\/p>\n
Court of Patna for quashing the same on the ground that the <\/p>\n
payment   of   the   flat   had   already   been   made   in   144   equal <\/p>\n
instalments and that the Board is not justified in raising such <\/p>\n
demand and not entitled to re-determination\/re-fixation of the <\/p>\n
price after delivery of possession.  The learned single Judge, by <\/p>\n
order dated 07.02.2008, allowed the writ petition and quashed <\/p>\n
the demand notice and directed the Board to grant permission <\/p>\n
for transfer of the flat in favour of Ms. Meera Verma, daughter-\n<\/p>\n
in-law of the respondent herein.  The learned single Judge also <\/p>\n
directed  the  Additional   Director  General  of  Vigilance,   State  of <\/p>\n
Bihar to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into <\/p>\n
the activities of the officials involved in the process of decision <\/p>\n
                                                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
making   and   also   to   initiate   enquiry   into   the   assets   and <\/p>\n
properties of such officials of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
(e)    Against   the   said   order   of   the   learned   single   Judge,   the <\/p>\n
Board   filed   appeal   being   L.P.A.   No.   211   of   2008   before   the <\/p>\n
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.     The   Division   Bench,   by <\/p>\n
impugned   order   dated   02.07.2008,   declined   to   interfere   with <\/p>\n
the  order  passed  by  the  learned single  Judge  disposed   of  the <\/p>\n
appeal filed by the appellants herein.   Aggrieved by the same, <\/p>\n
the Board preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition <\/p>\n
before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
3)     Heard   Mr.   S.   Chandra   Shekhar,   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
appellants-Board and Mr. Praneet Ranjan, learned counsel for <\/p>\n
the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 4)    Since   the   learned   single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   while <\/p>\n
allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent expressed his <\/p>\n
anguish over the manner in which the Board and its officials <\/p>\n
are   conducting   its   affairs,   issued   certain   directions   for <\/p>\n
Vigilance   inquiry,   the   Board   being   aggrieved   by   the   said <\/p>\n
directions   filed   an   appeal   before   the   Division   Bench.   The <\/p>\n
                                                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
Division   Bench,   by   impugned   order   dated   02.07.2008,   after <\/p>\n
observing   that   since   the   Vigilance   Department   has   already <\/p>\n
started preliminary inquiry, declined to interfere with the order <\/p>\n
passed by the learned single Judge.   The Board is very much <\/p>\n
aggrieved   by   the   directions   of   the   learned   single   Judge <\/p>\n
directing   Additional   Director   General   of   Vigilance,   State   of <\/p>\n
Bihar to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into <\/p>\n
the   activities   of   all   persons   who   are   involved   in   the   decision <\/p>\n
making   process   as   well   as   who   have   been   responsible   in <\/p>\n
creating   false   accounts   and   raising   false   demands   in   relation <\/p>\n
to the writ petitioner, namely, Asha Lata Verma.   In the same <\/p>\n
order,   the   learned   single   Judge   also   directed   that   an   inquiry <\/p>\n
into the assets and properties of such officials of the Board be <\/p>\n
carried out to see whether they have been benefited at the cost <\/p>\n
of innocent citizens.\n<\/p>\n
5)    Before   considering   the   directions   of   the   learned   single <\/p>\n
Judge   asking   the   Additional   Director   General   of   Vigilance, <\/p>\n
State of Bihar to enquire into the conduct of the officials of the <\/p>\n
Board,   we   have   to   see   the   grievance   of   the   respondent.     The <\/p>\n
                                                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
grievance of the respondent is that even though entire money <\/p>\n
for MIG flat bought by her husband in the year 1981 was paid <\/p>\n
yet the officials of the Board acting in most arbitrary manner <\/p>\n
have   raised   huge   demand.     By   various   orders   of   the   High <\/p>\n
Court,   ultimately   the   Board   transferred   the   ownership   of   the <\/p>\n
flat in question in favour of daughter-in-law of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Though   the   counsel   appearing   for   the   Board   has   stated   that <\/p>\n
the Board was justified in demanding an additional amount, in <\/p>\n
the   absence   of   such   details   and   in   view   of   the   fact   that   now <\/p>\n
the Board has transferred the title of the flat in favour of the <\/p>\n
daughter-in-law   of   the   respondent,   as   requested,   we   are   not <\/p>\n
inclined to go into the claim of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
6)     Let   us   consider   the   directions   issued   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
single   Judge   in   the   foregoing   paragraphs.   The   learned   single <\/p>\n
Judge having noticed that the cost of the flat as determined by <\/p>\n
the   Board   was   paid   by   the   allotee,   after   the   death   of   the <\/p>\n
original   allottee,   his   wife   –   respondent   herein   applied   for <\/p>\n
transferring   the   flat   in   her   name,   at   this   stage,   the   Board <\/p>\n
officials   required   her   to   furnish   proof   of   payments   and   other <\/p>\n
documents   which   were   duly   furnished   by   her,   thereafter <\/p>\n
                                                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
permission   was   granted   for   transfer   of   the   flat   in   her   name, <\/p>\n
ultimately,   on   a   request   being   made   by   the   respondent   for <\/p>\n
transferring  the  said  flat  in the  name of  her   daughter-in-law, <\/p>\n
the officials of the Board calculated  huge amount showing as <\/p>\n
outstanding   and   with   this   background,   the   learned   single <\/p>\n
Judge   examined   the   claim   of   the   writ   petitioner   and <\/p>\n
considered the   stand  of  the   Board.     It is   the   grievance  of  the <\/p>\n
Board   that   whether   in   a   writ   proceeding   where   the   writ <\/p>\n
petitioner challenged the demand notice issued by the Board, <\/p>\n
the writ Court could have gone beyond the relief sought by the <\/p>\n
petitioner and ordered an inquiry by the Vigilance Department <\/p>\n
after registering FIR?  It is also the grievance of the Board that <\/p>\n
whether   in   a  writ   proceeding,   the   learned   single   Judge   could <\/p>\n
have   ordered   registration   of   FIR   without   there   being   an <\/p>\n
allegation of any offence committed by anyone and whether in <\/p>\n
the absence of any specific allegation, the learned single Judge <\/p>\n
is justified in ordering a roving inquiry?\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
7)     The learned single Judge took note of many findings and <\/p>\n
observations of the  High Court  in several similar  cases.   It is <\/p>\n
important to mention here that the learned single Judge while <\/p>\n
passing   the   order   dated   07.02.2008   placed   reliance   on   the <\/p>\n
following   judgments,   viz.,  Smt.   Meera   Mishra  vs.  State   of  <\/p>\n
Bihar<\/a>  2001   (3)   PLJR   809,  Sanjeev   Kumar   Singh  vs. <\/p>\n
Managing   Director<\/a>  2003   (2)   PLJR   513   and  Sita   Devi  vs. <\/p>\n
Bihar   State   Housing   Board<\/a>  2007   (1)   PLJR   246.     It   was <\/p>\n
pointed   out   that   these   matters   were   either   set   aside   or <\/p>\n
modified   or   not   applicable   to   the   case   on   hand.    In   those <\/p>\n
observations,   the   High   Court   has   indicted   the   Board   for   its <\/p>\n
mismanaged   affairs   and   the   manner   in   which   it   was <\/p>\n
conducting   its   functioning.                 Heavily   relying   on   those <\/p>\n
observations and findings, the learned  single Judge held that <\/p>\n
the   demand   notice   was   totally   unjustified   and,   therefore,   it <\/p>\n
was quashed and the Board was directed to issue permission <\/p>\n
to   the   writ   petitioner   for   transfer   of   the   flat   in   favour   of   her <\/p>\n
daughter-in-law.  Having noticed the conduct of the Board, the <\/p>\n
learned   single   Judge   felt   that   its   functionaries   should   be <\/p>\n
subjected   to   an   investigation   by   the   State   Vigilance   and <\/p>\n
                                                                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
accordingly   a   direction   was   issued   to   the   Additional   Director <\/p>\n
General of Vigilance, State of Bihar to institute a case against <\/p>\n
the   Board   and   inquire   into   the   activities   of   all   persons   who <\/p>\n
were   involved   in   the   decision   making   process   as   well   as   who <\/p>\n
have   been   responsible   in   creating   false   accounts   and   raising <\/p>\n
false   demands.     The   learned   single   Judge   also   directed   to <\/p>\n
enquire  into  the   assets  and properties   of  such  officials   of  the <\/p>\n
Board.\n<\/p>\n
8)     It   is   seen   from   the   additional   documents   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
Board that based on the direction of the learned single Judge, <\/p>\n
Additional Director General Vigilance had sought opinion from <\/p>\n
the   Advocate   General.     By   letter   dated   19.07.2008,   after <\/p>\n
verifying   the   relief   sought   for   by   the   writ   petitioner   and   after <\/p>\n
analyzing   the   directions   of   the   learned   single   Judge   and   the <\/p>\n
materials   placed   by   the   investigation   team,   the   Advocate <\/p>\n
General has opined that the materials, which are collected so <\/p>\n
far   during   preliminary   inquiry   and   placed   on   record   do   not <\/p>\n
constitute any prima facie criminal offence against the officials <\/p>\n
of   the   Board   so   as   to   warrant   institution   of   a   regular   case.\n<\/p>\n
The said report was placed before the learned single Judge by <\/p>\n
                                                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, on 03.05.2010.   After <\/p>\n
going through the report of the Vigilance Department and the <\/p>\n
opinion   of   the   Advocate   General,   the   learned   single   Judge <\/p>\n
directed the Vigilance Department to spend more time on the <\/p>\n
investigation   and   file   a   report   on   the   issue   since   the   earlier <\/p>\n
report was not up to the expectation of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
9)    It is not in dispute that even as early as on 07.02.2008, <\/p>\n
the   learned   single   Judge   disposed   of   the   writ   petition   by <\/p>\n
allowing   the   same   and   granted   relief   to   the   respondent   and <\/p>\n
ordered   for   Vigilance   inquiry   against   the   Board   and   its <\/p>\n
officials.  Thereafter, even though the L.P.A. filed by the Board <\/p>\n
against   the   order   of   the   learned   single   Judge   was   also <\/p>\n
disposed   of   by   the   Division   Bench,   it   is   not   clear   and <\/p>\n
understandable   how   the   matter   was   heard   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
single Judge then and there. Even after perusing the report of <\/p>\n
the Vigilance Department based on the opinion of the Advocate <\/p>\n
General,   the   learned   single   Judge   passed   further   order   on <\/p>\n
03.05.2010   and   again   directed   the   Vigilance   Department   to <\/p>\n
submit   further   report.     It   is   the   grievance   of   the   Board   that <\/p>\n
inasmuch   as   the   writ   petitioner   has   secured   an   appropriate <\/p>\n
                                                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
relief   and   in   the   absence   of   any   specific   claim\/complaint <\/p>\n
furnished  with required  details, the learned  single Judge was <\/p>\n
not   justified   in   directing   the   Vigilance   Department   for   roving <\/p>\n
inquiry into the affairs of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
10)    It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   only   question   before   the <\/p>\n
learned single Judge was related to the demand notice issued <\/p>\n
by   the   Board.     No   doubt,   the   petitioner   therein   has   made <\/p>\n
certain statements against the officials of the Board, however, <\/p>\n
there   is   no   specific   complaint   either   by   the   writ   petitioner   or <\/p>\n
anyone pointing mismanagement in the affairs of the Board.  If <\/p>\n
there   is   any   specific   complaint   giving   all   the   details, <\/p>\n
undoubtedly, the Court can forward it to the forum concerned <\/p>\n
for investigation and further action pursuant to the outcome of <\/p>\n
the same.   Merely  on the basis  of  certain  observations  in the <\/p>\n
orders   of   the   High   Court   in   other   matters   which   were   either <\/p>\n
set aside or modified or not applicable to the case on hand, the <\/p>\n
learned single Judge was not justified in issuing directions for <\/p>\n
Vigilance   inquiry.     The   direction   also   proceeds   as   if   that   the <\/p>\n
officials of the Board benefited with the huge amount without <\/p>\n
basing   reliable   and   acceptable   materials.     Normally,   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
function of the Court is to sort out the dispute raised and only <\/p>\n
in   exceptional   cases   that   too   when   adequate   materials   are <\/p>\n
there such inquiry can be ordered but not on the basis of the <\/p>\n
general information, assumption or presumption.   Apart from <\/p>\n
this,   after   disposal   of   the   writ   petition   as   early   as   on <\/p>\n
07.02.2008,   how   the   learned   single   Judge   assumed <\/p>\n
jurisdiction and issued several directions in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
11)  In the  light  of  the   above  discussion,  we  are  satisfied  that <\/p>\n
the   direction   relating   to   inquiry   by   the   Vigilance   Department <\/p>\n
and   subsequent   orders   and   directions   by   the   learned   single <\/p>\n
Judge cannot be sustained.  While confirming the order of the <\/p>\n
learned   single   Judge   relating   to   the   relief   granted   to   the <\/p>\n
respondent,   all   other   directions   relating   to   the   Board   and   its <\/p>\n
officials are set aside.  However, it is made clear that if there is <\/p>\n
any   specific   complaint   with   facts   and   figures   against   any   of <\/p>\n
the officer of the Board, it is for the person concerned to move <\/p>\n
the appropriate prosecuting agency and if any such complaint <\/p>\n
is made, the agency is free to proceed in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
12)  The civil appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                 ……………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                      (P. SATHASIVAM) <\/p>\n
                                ……………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                   (H.L. GOKHALE) <\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
JULY 28, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011 Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Gokhale REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5779 OF 2008 Bihar State Housing Board & Ors. …. Appellant (s) Versus Asha Lata Verma …. Respondent(s) J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-252592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-02T07:07:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-02T07:07:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2168,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-02T07:07:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-02T07:07:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-02T07:07:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011"},"wordCount":2168,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011","name":"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-02T07:07:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-housing-board-ors-vs-asha-lata-verma-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bihar State Housing Board & Ors vs Asha Lata Verma on 28 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252592","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=252592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}