Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Despite the adjournment granted earlier for filing a reply to the supplementary affidavit, no such reply has been filed by the Patna Regional Development Authority. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to rely on the supplementary affidavit since nothing hinges upon the same for the decision of this case. 3. The petitioner has come to this court for quashing the illegal demand of Rs. 16,22,111.30.00 by letter no. 1713 dated 8.4.2000 issued by the Patna. Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") asking him to deposit the said amount within 15 days failing which the allotment in his favour would be cancelled and also the further letter no. 2300 dated 27.5.2000, by which the said demand has been repeated with a direction to pay the same by 15.6.2000, on failure of which the same consequence would follow (Annexures 23 and 24 to the writ petition). The petitioner seeks further direction upon the respondents to execute the lease deed forthwith on the basis of the payment made and accepted by the P.R.D.A. as total price of the land. 4. The short facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner made an application on 27.4.1966, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Patna Improvement Trust, which was predecessor of the Authority for allotment of a plot in Srikrishnapuri, Patna. The petitioners father late Jaffar Imam, was allotted plot no. A/224 by letter No. 7677/79 dated 17.10.1966 comprising of an area of 3 kathas and 1017 sq. ft. that is, approximately 5100 sq. ft. @ 2700.00 per katha at the total cost of Rs. 10,117.57/-. 5. Due to revision in lay-out the area of the plot increased from 3 katha 1017 sft. to 5.221 katha, equivalent to 7106 sq. ft; the Authority communicated the same and additional demand was raised by the authority by letter dated 16.4.1970. The total amount of Rs. 16,185.00 was also paid by the petitioners father. By letter No. 5053 dated 4.12.1973 (Annexure-3) the final calculation was made taking into account the total cost of the land acquisition and total development cost and the allottee was asked to pay at the rate of Rs. 3700/-per katha, which amount with interest came to Rs. 22,133.35 and after adjusting the amount already paid the demand of Rs. By letter No. 5053 dated 4.12.1973 (Annexure-3) the final calculation was made taking into account the total cost of the land acquisition and total development cost and the allottee was asked to pay at the rate of Rs. 3700/-per katha, which amount with interest came to Rs. 22,133.35 and after adjusting the amount already paid the demand of Rs. 5,948.47.00 was raised, which was also paid by the father of the petitioner. A further sum of Rs. 770.90.00 was directed to be paid by letter dated 12.12.1977, which was also paid. Thereafter, on the death of the father of the petitioner on 29.4.1979, a request was made to mutate the name of the petitioner. The same was considered by the Authority and by resolution dated 7.5.1987 (Annexure-5), the name of the petitioner was mutated and it was specifically provided that the settlement shall be made at the old rate. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same was done even after the cost of the land had earlier been revised by the Authority vide resolution no. 22 dated 6.2.1984 to Rs. 45,000.00 per katha. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner drew the attention of the Authority to the encroachment over the said plot and made a request for removing the said encroachment and giving delivery of possession to him. An undertaking was also given to deposit the necessary stamp paper in the form prescribed which was also handed over to the Authority on 4.5.1988, but no steps for execution of the deed and removal of encroachment were taken. Ultimately, after a long lapse of time by letter dated 22.2.1998 addressed to the Collector, Patna, a request was made for removal of encroachment so that the possession of the property could be handed over to the petitioner. Ultimately, the encroachment was removed from the plot in question on 3.12.2000, which is apparent from letter dated 4.2.2000 addressed by the Vice-Chairman of the Authority to Sri Krishnapuri Police Station. The fact of removal of encroachment from the plot in question was also officially conveyed to the petitioner by letter no. 851 dated 9.2.2000 (Annexure-20). The petitioner, in the meantime, made an application on 5.2.2003 to the Estate-cum-Revenue Officer of the Authority for information about the actual amount of stamp paper now required for registration and also for approval of draft of lease deed so that registration could be facilitated. 851 dated 9.2.2000 (Annexure-20). The petitioner, in the meantime, made an application on 5.2.2003 to the Estate-cum-Revenue Officer of the Authority for information about the actual amount of stamp paper now required for registration and also for approval of draft of lease deed so that registration could be facilitated. Since the same was not done, he submitted the draft lease-cum-agreement on the basis of the standard model of the P.R.D.A. lease, executed in case of others, for approval of the same for the purpose of execution. However, by the impugned letter no. 1713 dated 8.4.2000 (Annexure-23), the petitioner was asked to deposit sum of Rs. 16,22,111.30.00 with the stipulation that on failure to deposit the amount, the allotment of the plot in question would be cancelled. On the petitioners representation, the Authority reiterated the said demand by letter no. 2300 dated 27.5.2000 (Annexure-24).The petitioner has thus approached this court for the reliefs aforesaid. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the resolution dated 7.5.1987 (Annexure-5), which is the decision of the Board it had been directed that the name of the petitioner should be mutated in place of his deceased father and further that the settlement shall be made at the old rates and the said order could, thus, only be reviewed or modified by the Board and not by any officer of the Authority. For the said reasons Annexures 23 and 24 are non est and have no validity in the eye of law. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demand could be raised only on the basis of allotment letter dated 17.10.1966 (Annexure-A) in which it was clearly stipulated that the area and the cost mentioned in clauses 1 and 3 of the said allotment letter were only approximate and the exact area and the exact standard cost would be worked out after the exact costs of acquisition and development are known and in case the same are found to be in excess of the approximate cost as given in the letter of demand, the allottee would be obliged to pay the same. It is submitted that in the present matter the exact cost of execution and of development was worked out and communicated by the authority by letter dated 4.12.1973 (Annexure-3) and admittedly the difference so worked out has also been paid by the petitioner; thus it is not open to the authority to raise any further demand after the matter stood concluded by letter dated 4.12.1973 in terms of the stipulation in the letter of allotment. 8. In support of the stand of the P.R.D.A., learned counsel for the P.R.D.A. mainly sought to rely upon Annexure-A, the letter of allotment dated 17.10.1966 in paragraph no. 6 of which the stipulations, as mentioned above, are contained stating that the area and cost of acquisition mentioned in clauses 1 and 3 of the allotment letter is only approximate. This court fails to understand how any benefit of the said clause 6 of the letter of allotment can enure to the P.R.D.A. when the same is clearly in favour of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the facts of this case. It is nowhere stated in said paragraph 6 of Annexure-A that the Authorities shall be at liberty to repeatedly work out the actual cost of acquisition and the actual cost of development. The same having once been determined by letter dated 4.12.1973, it was not open to the authority to revise the same at any later date, more so when the resolution dated 7.5.1987 of the P.R.D.A. while mutating the name of the petitioner specifically provided that the settlement shall be made at the old rate. In any case, the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures 23 and 24 do not purport to be a revision of either the actual cost of acquisition or actual cost of development, rather they are on the basis of the price of land determined for the purpose of allotment at the time when these letters have been issued and they have no connection at all with the actual cost of acquisition or actual cost of development. The said re-fixation of the value of the land for the purpose of allotment can have no application to the case of the petitioner and it, at best, can apply to the case of fresh allotment of land made by the Authority. 9. The said re-fixation of the value of the land for the purpose of allotment can have no application to the case of the petitioner and it, at best, can apply to the case of fresh allotment of land made by the Authority. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the RR.D.A. further submitted that the P.R.D.A. has since been dissolved on the basis of an Ordinance promulgated-by the State and the powers of the P.R.D.A. have now devolved upon the Patna Municipal Corporation. The said fact cannot make any difference to the right of the petitioner to be treated as valid allottee of the land and his entitlement to the execution of the lease deed by the appropriate authorities, be it the P.R.D.A. or its successor, Patna Municipal Corporation, as stated by learned counsel for the P.R.D.A., and also to get possession over the said plot in question. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ application is allowed. The impugned letters dated 8.4.2000 and 27.5.2000, as contained in Annexures 23 and 24 are quashed and the P.R.D.A. and/or its successor authorities are directed to-execute the lease deed forthwith on the basis of the payment already made and accepted by the P.R.D.A. as total price of the land and further to handover possession of the said plot of the land to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.