Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1162 (PAT)

Ramdeo Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2003-11-12

S.N.JHA

body2003
Judgment 1. This contempt petition arises from a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of 1992. One Most. Jeera Devi had filed the said writ petition for allotment of a residential plot at Rajendra Nagar under the displaced persons category. It may be mentioned here that a large chunk of land of the locality then known as Mahmudichak now Rajendra Nagar in Patna town was acquired for development of a housing colony under the aegis of the Patna Improvement Trust, the predecessor of the present Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA). The land of one Ram Das Pandit- was also acquired. The scheme provided for allotment of a plot to the land loosers. His wife Basomati Devi filed application for allotment of a plot of land. After her death said Jeera Devi who was daughter of Basomati Devi prosecuted the claim and, as such, filed the writ petition. Jeera Devi died and the petitioner herein was substituted in her place on 22-10-1997. There is a dispute about the petitioners relationship with Jeera Devi and/or Basomati Devi/Ram Das Pandit. I will refer to this aspect of the case a little later in this order, I shall, also, refer to the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of 1992 later in this order. It may be stated at this stage that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Vice-Chairman, PRDA vide letter No. 1267 dated 6-5-2003. Another order was passed, rejecting the claim, on 1-11-2003. Copies of the said letter/order are Annexures M and N to the supplementary show cause and second supplementary show cause, respectively. 2. On the basis of the above said orders it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the claim of the petitioner having been considered and disposed of though rejected and the order of this Court in the connected case thus has been complied with. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the orders of the Vice-Chairman are not in accordance with the order of this Court and, therefore, not only the order should be set aside, without relegating the petitioner to the writ jurisdiction and asking him to file fresh writ petition, the opposite party, in the circumstances, should be held to have committed contempt of Court and punished. In support of the contention that while deciding contempt petition the High Court can consider the merit of the case and pass appropriate order, reliance was placed on H. M. Ramaul V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 198 : (1991Cri LJ 1415)-and Ram Vilas Mishra V/s. State of Bihar, 1993 (1) Pat LJR 437. 3. Elaborating the submissions, on behalf of the petitioner-ShriY. V. Giri submitted that the petitioner having been substituted in place of Jeera Devi by order dated 22-10-1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 2262/92, it is not open to the authorities of the PRDA to question the status of the petitioner as heir/ successor of Most Jeera Devi and the finding of the Vice-Chairman in the order communicated by letter dated 6-5-2003 amounts to gross contempt of Court for which he is liable to be punished. He pointed out that PRDA was represented by its counsel in the writ petition but did not oppose the prayer for substitution, and even if the order dated 22-12-1997 is treated as ex parte order, no application was ever filed for recall/modification of the said order and in the circumstances, it is not open to the PRDA to question the status of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that the fact that correspondences were made with the petitioner and that he was offered a flat by letter No. 668 dated 1-2-2000, enclosed as Enclosure E to the show cause, should be treated as recognition by the PRDA of the petitioners status as his/successor of Jeera Devi. 4. While dealing with the question of petitioners status vis-a-vis Most. Jeera Devi and/or Basomati Devi/Ram Das Pandit, it is relevant to mention that the hearing of this case at one stage was postponed to. enable the petitioner to bring on record proof of her relationship with the aforesaid persons. The petitioner thereafter filed photo copy of the matriculation certificate wherein name of Ram Das Pandit has been mentioned as father of the petitioner. After the said certificate was brought on record, the Vice-Chairman passed another order dated 1-11-2003, referred to above. He expressed reservations about the genuineness of the certificate in that order too. 5. The controversy regarding the petitioners status/locus standi is not such as to warrant a detailed consideration. There is little doubt that the petitioner is son of Late Ramdas Pandit and Basomati Devi was the wife of Ram Das Pandit. He expressed reservations about the genuineness of the certificate in that order too. 5. The controversy regarding the petitioners status/locus standi is not such as to warrant a detailed consideration. There is little doubt that the petitioner is son of Late Ramdas Pandit and Basomati Devi was the wife of Ram Das Pandit. Being her son, he certainly possesses the necessary locus standi to prosecute the claim. It is true that in an affidavit relied upon by the Vice-Chairman, Jeera Devi declared herself as "only daughter and legal heir" of her mother Basomati Devi (who expired on 18-4-1980). But the said statement cannot be used to the detriment of other heirs. That was a unilateral statement of Jeera Devi before an Executive Magistrate which has no binding effect on others. After looking at the original matriculation certificate, photo copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-14, I have little doubt that the photo copy is genuine. The petitioner being son of Basomati Devi, the original applicant, after her death, his right to prosecute the claim cannot be disputed. 6. The Vice-Chairman in his order dated 1-11 -2003 (supra) has assigned other reasons too to reject the petitioners claim, such as that the petitioner does not qualify for allotment of a plot in view of R. 17 of the PRDA (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1978 inasmuch as he owns a residential house at Patna in which he along with his family members resides; that though the petitioner filed serval applications for allotment of a plot at Rajendra Nagar he never filed the required affidavit; and that the High Court in its order dated 8-9-1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 2262/99 (by which the petition was disposedof) never directed to allot a plot of land in favour of the petitioner after relaxing the rules. 7. At this stage the order dated 6-9-1999 giving rise to this contempt petition may be quoted as under : "Pursuant to the previous order of this Court dated 30th August, 1999 it appears that the flat in Rajendra Nagar locality has been offered to -the writ petitioner, which is now on records, by the P.R.D.A. authorities by the communication dated 31st August, 1999. Learned counsel for the P.R.D.A. authorities submits that the said communication has not been received in their office as yet. Learned counsel for the P.R.D.A. authorities submits that the said communication has not been received in their office as yet. After receipt of the said communication, the flat in question will be allotted in terms of the said order dated 31st August, 1999 within one week from the date of petitioners acceptance of such offer. Counsel for the petitioner agrees to accept such offer which has been communicated to him by letter dated 31st August. 1999. This Court makes it clear that even though offer of the flat is accepted by the petitioner, liberty is given to him to file a representation without prejudice for allotment of plot at Rajendra Nagar. If such representation is made by the petitioner to the appropriate authorities of the P.R.D.A. in that case the P.R.D.A. authorities will examine whether there is any vacant plot available for allotment, and if the authorities of the P.R.D.A. finds that there is any vacant plot for allotment, then the petitioners representation should be considered in accordance with law, and also on the basis of pri-ority claim of the parties. (Emphasis added) 8. From a bare perusal of the above order it would be manifest that what was offered to the petitioner was a flat as against the claim for a plot which the petitioner accepted, and though liberty was given to him to make representation, the Court clarified that the representation may be considered in accordance with law and, also, on the basis of the priority claim of the parties. It is relevant to mention here that the allotment of a flat was not an independent decision of the PRDA. As a matter of fact, by an interim order dated 26-8-1993, a direction was issued to consider the petitioners case for allotment of a flat in any of the complexes in Rajendra Nagar locality. It is relevant to mention here that the allotment of a flat was not an independent decision of the PRDA. As a matter of fact, by an interim order dated 26-8-1993, a direction was issued to consider the petitioners case for allotment of a flat in any of the complexes in Rajendra Nagar locality. The relevant part of the order dated 26-8-1993 may be extracted as under : "Instead of going into the intricacies of the submission urged before us, we consider it fair for the PRDA to consider whether the petitioner can be considered for allotment of a flat in any of the complexes in Rajendra Nagar locality as a displaced person even under self-financing scheme." From Annexure-B to the show cause it appears that the application of Jeera Devi was considerd by the Land Disposal Committee in the light of the said order of this Court and decision was taken to offer her a flat under the self-financing scheme at the present price, vide Resolution No. 5/97 dated 23-12-1997. The said decision of the Land Disposal Committee was confirmed by the Board of Directors vide Resolution No. 3/98 dated 11-8-1998, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-C to the show cause. By Annexure-D dated 31-8-1999, the petitioner was thereafter informed of the allotment of flat No. G-3 or 201 in Block 1/93 at Rajendra Nagar under self-financing scheme. It is this letter, dated 31-8-1999, which was referred to in the order of this Court dated 8-9-1999, quoted hereinabove. 9. It is thus, evident that allotment of flat instead of plot of land, was not an independent decision of the PRDA the decision was pursuant to the order of this Court. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, accepted the offer and with such acceptance the application for allotment of plot of land, it must be held, stood finally disposed of. 10. The petitioner, however, it is apparent, is not interested in the flat. He did not respond to the letters by which he was asked to furnish papers after the aforesaid allotment of the flat. In this regard it was stated that the petitioner was asked to take the flat at the present rate which was not acceptable to the petitioner. It is not necessary to go into this aspect of the case in this proceeding. In this regard it was stated that the petitioner was asked to take the flat at the present rate which was not acceptable to the petitioner. It is not necessary to go into this aspect of the case in this proceeding. The petitioner never approached this Court challenging the price of the flat and, therefore, it is futile to go into that question. What the petitioner wants is plot of land and not flat. The only point for consideration is whether by reason of the latter part of the order dated 6-9-1999 by which the petitioner was asked to make representation for allotment of plot of land at Rajendra Nagar, the decision of the Vice-Chairman rejecting the petitioners claim is in accordance with law. It is to be kept in mind that at no stage, either Basomati Devi or Jeera Devi was offered a plot of land. 11. As indicated above, the rejection of the petitioners claim inter alia is on the ground that the petitioner already owns a house in which he is living with his family members and, therefore, he is not eligible for allotment of plot of land in view of the provisions of R. 17 of the Disposal of Land Rules, 1978. In paragraph 9 of the show cause statements to this effect have been made and it would be useful to quote the same as under : That R. 17 of the Disposal of the Land Rules framed under the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act provides that persons who or show dependence do not have house/flat of their own at Patna, are entitled to a flat/plot from the authority but in the present case, it is learnt to the authority that the petitioner has his own house at Flat No. C-57, K-Sector, Mohalla Hanumannagar, P.S. Patrakarnagar, District Patna under the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna Regional Development Authority. It is further relevant to mention here that the aforesaid plot has been carved out from Patrakarngar Grih Nirman Sahyog Samitti to whom the State Government/Housing Board has provided more than 100 plots out of which one plot has been allotted to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner has no entitlement for a plot from the authority." Copy of the certificate issued by the ExChairman of Patrakar Nagar Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti to the above effect has been enclosed as Annexure-F to the show cause. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the show cause. The averments made in paragraph 9 of the show cause have been dealt with in paragraph 11 of the rejoinder, the relevant part of which runs as under. That so far as the statements made in para 9 of the show cause under reply, it is stated that the statements are misleading and irrelevant for the purpose of this case. It is further submitted that because the petitioner has purchased the land and constructed the house, his claim cannot be defeated or denied because of the simple reason that the land of the petitioner was acquired and he has not been given any plot under displaced person scheme. 12. It would thus appear that the stand of the opposite party regarding petitioner having residential house at Patna is not denied by the petitioner. Rule 17 of the Disposal of Land Rules, 1978 provides that in case of plots to be leased for residential purposes preference will be given to one (a)........................... (b) who or his dependents do not own a residential house of his own at Patna, (c) who does not own, or has a share in any land at Patna suitable for construction of a residential house; and (d)........................... 13. It may be recalled that by the said order dated 6-9-1999 permitting the petitioner to file representation for plot of land at Rajendra Nagar, the Court clarified that the representation should be considered "in accordance with law and also on the basis of priority claim of the parties." It is true that Rule 17 of the Disposal of Land Rules refers to "preference" and the provisions thereof cannot be regarded as laying down eligibility/ineligibility of the applicants, rejection of the claim on the ground that the person already owns a residential house of his own or has a share in any land at Patna cannot be said to be an irrelevant consideration. The object of R. 17 is to allot plots of land to those who do not have house or land at Patna and, therefore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he already owns a house at Patna cannot be said to be arbitrary. The object of R. 17 is to allot plots of land to those who do not have house or land at Patna and, therefore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he already owns a house at Patna cannot be said to be arbitrary. It need hardly pointed out that while plots are limited in number, the aspirants are unlimited, therefore, where the allotment of plot is refused to a person who already has a house or land at Patna so that the available plot(s) may be allotted to those who do not have house or land, cannot be said to be arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court. 14 In the above premises, in my opinion, no ground is made out for interference by this Court. In any view the opposite party cannot be held to be in contempt of this Court. 15. Before I part with this case I may mention that in the ordinary course, decision having been taken by the Vice-Chairman, PRDA on the petitioners representation, I would have asked the petitioner to challenge the same by writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, if so advised, counsel for the petitioner however, invited this Court to decide on merit, the finding/order on merit has accordingly been recorded at the petitioners instance. 16. In the result, the MJC is dismissed.