Prem Shankar Sahay v. Chairman Improvement Trust — 1967 DIGILAW 64 (PAT)

By Court : This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus directing opposite parties nos. 1 and 3, namely, the then Chairman, Improvement Trust and the Patna Improvement Trust, for performing their statutory duty within a specified period of time by making allotment of plot no. 10 or any other suitable plot in favour of the petitioner. The facts giving rise to this application are these. 2. The petitioner along with the other members of his family were the joint owners of a land and building on plot nos. 151 and 152, holding nos. 85, 86, 89 and 89A of municipal survey in ward No. II situate on the corner of Hasan Imam Road, formerly known as Dak Bungalow Road, and Patna Gaya Road in the town of Patna. There was a residential house with out-houses and shops On that land the petitioner was living in the residential house bearing holding no. 118 as he is an Advocate practising in the High Court. In accordance with scheme no. II of the Patna Improvement Trust, framed under the provisions of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, (Act 35 of 1951), hereinafter to be referred to as the Improvement Trust Act for the sake of brevity, the said land and building were to be acquired for the improvement of the Patna town and a notice in that connection was given in September 1957 to the petitioner and other co-sharers. In due course, the acquisition proceeding was completed on 15.9.1961 and thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Chairman, Patna Improvement Trust (Opposite Party no.1) on 25.9.1961 for allotment of a suitable plot of land for construction of residential house. Subsequently, the petitioner had to vacate on 7.2.1964 the residential house which he was occupying and then he filed an application on 11.3.1964 for expediting the allotment of a suitable plot so that he may build a house for his residential purpose. In fact, he served a notice on opposite party no. Subsequently, the petitioner had to vacate on 7.2.1964 the residential house which he was occupying and then he filed an application on 11.3.1964 for expediting the allotment of a suitable plot so that he may build a house for his residential purpose. In fact, he served a notice on opposite party no. 1 on 24.8.1964 to expedite the allotment, but no attention was paid and then the petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (M.J.C. 1334 of 1964) in this Court for a direction to the Patna Improvement Trust to allot a piece of land to him. At the hearing of the said application, learned counsel appearing for the Patna Improvement Trust and the Land Acquisition Officer, Patna (Opposite Party no. 3), stated that the Patna Improvement Trust was taking all possible steps to expedite their decision in regard to which of the plots should be reserved for lease or sale at actual cost with displaced persons as contemplated under rule 3(f) of the Patna Improvement Trust (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1957, and they expected to implement such decision when taken, soon. In view of this attitude of the said Trust, the petitioner withdrew the said application for a writ There was, however, a direction by this Court, while disposing of that application, that in Case of inordinate delay on the part of the Patna Improvement Trust to perform its statutory duties and obligations, it would be open to the petitioner to take proceedings in that respect for the redress of his grievance. The order of this Court on that application is dated the 11th May, 1965 and a copy of it has been marked Annexure L. 3. On 14.6.1965 a Resolution was passed by the Land Disposal Committee of the Patna Improvement Trust and that resolution was to the following effect: "Resolved unanimously that Shri Prem Shankar Sahay, a previous owner of a piece of land in scheme no. II be allotted a plot for residential purpose in scheme no. II area after the plotting of the area has been completed, cost per square yard determined and formalities finalised by the Board". A copy of this resolution is Annexure M. Thereafter, the petitioner made frantic efforts by meeting the Chairman, opposite party no. II be allotted a plot for residential purpose in scheme no. II area after the plotting of the area has been completed, cost per square yard determined and formalities finalised by the Board". A copy of this resolution is Annexure M. Thereafter, the petitioner made frantic efforts by meeting the Chairman, opposite party no. 1, and the Executive Officer of the Patna Improvement Trust so that the allotment may be expedited but all his efforts were futile. The petitioner then filed another application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (C.W.J.C. 404 of 1966). This application was disposed of on 9.8.1966 in the following terms vide Annexure O: "Mr. Lalnarain Sinha for respondent no. 1 states that respondent no. 1 gives an undertaking to the Court to settle a plot of land with the petitioner out of the residential area within three months from today, Mr. Dutta for the petitioner agrees to this undertaking." It may be stated that the Chairman of the Improvement Trust was the respondent no. 1 in that case. 4. On 8.10.1966 the petitioner received a letter from the Executive Officer of the Patna Improvement Trust that plot no. 11 had been allotted to him in scheme no. II at the rate of Rs. 8,500/-per katha. The petitioner ascertained the location of that plot and found that there was no road for going to that plot and that the said plot was not at all convenient and suitable for the use of the petitioner. The petitioner expressed his inability and regret for taking settlement of that plot and he was assured by the authorities concerned that another plot would be settled with him. The petitioner approached opposite party no. 1 and the Executive Officer of the Patna Improvement Trust to expedite the matter, but there was still further delay in making the allotment. The petitioner learnt that plot no. 10, which was on a 40 feet wide road bad been allotted to Dr. Sreeniwas, opposite party no. 5. The petitioner again made efforts in this direction by sending a letter on 17.11.1966 to opposite party no. 1 and requested him to make allotment within two weeks. The petitioner did not receive any communication from opposite party no. 1 with regard to the allotment of another plot and thereby he suffered great inconvenience so far the accomodation was concerned. The petitioner again made efforts in this direction by sending a letter on 17.11.1966 to opposite party no. 1 and requested him to make allotment within two weeks. The petitioner did not receive any communication from opposite party no. 1 with regard to the allotment of another plot and thereby he suffered great inconvenience so far the accomodation was concerned. The petitioner alleged that although he had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in December, 1962, in the credit of the Patna Improvement Trust, yet opposite party no.1 had not made the allotment of a suitable plot and had thus failed to perform the statutory duties enjoined by the provisions of the Improvement Trust Act. He further alleged that opposite parties nos. 1 and 3 had ignored his claim for allotment of the land although they had settled two plots of land with an outsider (opposite party no. 5) in preference to his claim. In these circumstances the petitioner filed the present application on 12.1.1967 for the relief already indicated. 5. On 16.1.1967 this application was admitted and there was an order on the same date to issue notices on opposite parties nos. 1 and 3 to show cause why proceedings for contempt may not be initiated against them for the reasons stated in the petition. A rule was further issued directing all the members of the opposite party to show cause why the further prayer of the petitioner should not be allowed. 6. In answer to the said petition, opposite party no. 1 showed cause and referred to the Resolution dated the 14th June, 1965, passed in the meeting of the Land Disposal Committee, according to which the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of a plot of land in scheme no. II for his residential purposes. But, opposite party no. 1 alleged that inspite of the best efforts made by the Patna Improvement Trust, the plotting of the lands in question and the working out of the actual cost could not be completed till July, 1966, for one reason or the other. It is not necessary to state the further facts stated in the show cause petition in view of the later developments and the action of the Chairman of the Patna Improvement Trust, which we will presently indicate. This application was beard in part on the 20th April, 1967 and then it was adjourned for further hearing. It is not necessary to state the further facts stated in the show cause petition in view of the later developments and the action of the Chairman of the Patna Improvement Trust, which we will presently indicate. This application was beard in part on the 20th April, 1967 and then it was adjourned for further hearing. But, before the further hearing, an application has been filed by the petitioner on the 2nd August, 1967, that after the hearing was adjourned, the question of allotment was considered by the Patna Improvement Trust and the Chairman, opposite party no.1, sent a letter, Annexure 1, dated the 28th June, 1967 to the petitioner stating as follows : "This is to inform you that a plot measuring 90' x 76' facing only 40' wide road which is the branch of the Patna-Gaya Road has been allotted to you. A formal allotment order indicating plot number and cost of the plot will be communicated to you soon after the receipt of necessary report from the Chief Engineer Patna Improvement Trust, Patna." This is letter no. 183/ES/PTT. 7. On receipt of the said letter the petitioner waited for some time and then sent a letter (Annexure II) on 12.7.1967 to opposite party no. 1 requesting him to issue a formal order of allotment and complete all the formalities at an early date so that he may deposit the price of the land in question. The petitioner expressly mentioned that the matter had been pending for a long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in accordance with rule 2(d) of the Patna Improvement Trust (Disposal of Land) Rules 1957, the petitioner was a "displaced person", meaning there by that he was displaced from his land on account of the execution of the said scheme of the Trust. He further submitted that the petitioner being a "displaced person", priority has to be given to him so far the allotment of a plot of land in the said scheme was concerned. He relied on the provisions of Section 85 of the Improvement Trust Act as well. Section 85 provides as follows : "(1) The Trust may retain, or may lease, sell, exchange, let on hire, or otherwise dispose of any land vested in or acquired by it under this Act. He relied on the provisions of Section 85 of the Improvement Trust Act as well. Section 85 provides as follows : "(1) The Trust may retain, or may lease, sell, exchange, let on hire, or otherwise dispose of any land vested in or acquired by it under this Act. (2) Whenever the Trust decides to lease or sell any land acquired by it under this Act from any person it- (a) shall give notice by advertisement in the local newspapers, and (b) shall offer to the said person, or his heirs, executors or administrators, a prior right to take on lease or to purchase such land, at a rate to be fixed by the Trust, if the Trust considers that such an offer can be made without detriment to the carrying out of the purposes of this Act." Relying on this provision, the contention was that the authorities of the Patna Improvement Trust had to give a priority to the petitioner so far the allotment of a plot of land was concerned. But, the Patna Improvement Trust and its Chairman had failed to carry out their statutory duties and obligations. 8. On the 10th August, 1967 further hearing of this case commenced and then an affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 stating the circumstances in which the order of allotment of a plot of land had not been issued to the petitioner yet. This affidavit indicates that the application of the petitioner for allotment was considered by the Board of Trustees and the Land Disposal Committee and ultimately the Land Disposal Committee allotted another plot of land to the petitioner on a 40 feet wide road and the petitioner was informed of it by letter no. 183/ES/PIT, dated the 23th June, 1967. The explanation for the delay in issuing the order of allotment, however, is that before any document could be executed in favour of the petitioner, the State Government had issued directions to the Trust that all steps in connection with all the allotments should be stayed as the validity of the allotments were to be enquired into by a Commission to be appointed by the State Government. The affidavit further discloses that opposite party no. The affidavit further discloses that opposite party no. 1 sought clarification from the State Government as to whether the directions issued to the Trust would cover the case of the present petitioner and the state Government had advised him (opposite party no. 1) that it was advisable to make the allotments to all the evictees together and it was not proper to single out the petitioner and make an allotment in his favour separately. The learned Advocate General placed this affidavit but submitted that opposite party no. 1 would, however, be prepared to comply with any order which this Court might pass in the present case. 9. On an analysis of the facts stated above, it is quite clear that the petitioner was a "displaced person" according to rule 2(d). The land and the house belonging to him and other members of his family were acquired and the petitioner vacated his house on the 7th February, 1964. Thereafter, he made vigorous efforts for the allotment of a land and he had to file various applications in this Court from time to time for that purpose, but there was a considerable delay in the allotment for one reason or the other. Moreover, various undertakings and assurances were given to the petitioner on behalf of the opposite party no. 1. But, final orders for allotment have not been passed as yet. This is one of those case where the petitioner is being driven from pillar to post and he has been put to considerable harassment. We are not concerned in the present application with the directions issued by the State Government and we refrain from expressing any opinion with regard to that direction. But, it is quite clear that so far the allotment of a plot of land with the petitioner is concerned, the Patna Improvement Trust and its Chairman have to carry out the assurances and undertakings given by them from time to time as a result of which the petitioner had to withdraw his application for writ on a previous occasion. The position thus is that the controversy between the petitioner on one hand and the Patna Improvement Trust on the other is already settled and decided in view of the previous attitude adopted by the Patna Improvement Trust to the effect that the said Trust had agreed to settle a plot of land with the petitioner. The position thus is that the controversy between the petitioner on one hand and the Patna Improvement Trust on the other is already settled and decided in view of the previous attitude adopted by the Patna Improvement Trust to the effect that the said Trust had agreed to settle a plot of land with the petitioner. It is not now open to opposite party no. 1 to take any shelter under the direction referred to in their affidavit filed on the 10th August, 1967. 10. The petitioner has fully established that he had a legal right for the settlement of a plot of land by the Patna Improvement Trust and the said Trust and its Chairman failed to carry out their statutory duties and obligations. The petitioner is thus entitled to a writ of mandamus. 11. In the result, let a writ of mandamus issue on the Chairman, Improvement Trust (opposite party no. 1) and the Patna Improvement Trust (opposite party no.3) directing them to send to the petitioner within one month from today a formal order of allotment regarding the plot measuring 90 feet X 75 feet facing a 40 feet wide road which is a branch of the patna Gaya Road (referred to in the letter no. 183/ES/PIT, dated 28.6.67) indicating the price thereof. Mr. Dutta on behalf of the petitioner gives an undertaking that the petitioner would deposit the price of the land within one week from the date the petitioner receives the formal order of allotment, but after the deposit is made, opposite parties nos. 1 and 3 are directed to demarcate the plot in question and give delivery of it to the petitioner within one month of the date of the deposit. 12. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above, but there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.