Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1144 (PAT)

Md. Shaukat Hayat Khan v. State of Bihar

2008-08-11

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2008
ORDER : 1. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the ORDER :of cancellation of allotment of five quarters constructed at Gaiwalbigha by Gaya Regional Development Authority and their re-allotment to the private respondents without considering their case and ignoring the fact that they are in occupation of the said quarters as tenants for a long period of time. They also want quashing, if not cancellation, of the allotment letters issued in favour of the respondents. 2. Way back in the year 1960-61 the then Gaya improvement Trust in a slum clearance prograrmme constructed some low income group houses. The same were allotted to persons on the terms fixed by the Trust authorities. These allotments were made somewhere in 1974. But it seems that the original allottees did not become the actual occupiers. They inducted certain persons as tenants without due knowledge and information or permission of Gaya Improvement Trust. The present petitioners are such inductees. The arrangement, it seems, continued for quite a while till the matter came to the knowledge of the Regional Development authorities, the successor-in-interest of Gaya Improvement Trust. The authorities therefore vide ORDER :dated 7.3.2000 cancelled the allotment of the original allottees. Cancellation ORDER :s have been brought on record as Annexure-2 series. The petitioners state that this cancellation ORDER :was not within their knowledge. There was no information to them and so far as they are concerned they continued to pay rent to the original allottees. Subsequently when the petitioners learnt of such a decision of the respondents they made applications to the Vice-Chairman for consideration of their cases for allotment in the given back ground. It seems that by a decision dated 13.5.2000 contained in Annexure-4 the respondents in principle agreed to consider their cases. Petitioners became sanguine that a decision in their favour would be taken but then they got rattled when the police from Rampur Police Station came and asked them to vacate the premises. On enquiry they found out that the private respondents have been allotted the flats and they have been denied allotment by the respondents. It is in this background that they decided to file the present writ application and seek a direction upon the respondents. 3. Petitioners claim that there is a violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is in this background that they decided to file the present writ application and seek a direction upon the respondents. 3. Petitioners claim that there is a violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. They have equity in their favour to demand such a settlement and that the decision taken by the respondents is neither fair nor just. 4. Counter affidavit thereafter came to be filed both by official respondents as well as the private respondents. The official respondents have explained the background to the decision making and they deny any wrong doing on their part. They assert that whatever decision has been taken in the interest of the Regional Development Authority and was aimed at weeding out unwanted elements who had illegally occupied the property in question. They seriously opposed the maintainability of the writ application also on the ground that trespasser has no legal status in their eye and whatever claim they are now making in the writ application is in absence of any legal right in their favour. 5. The private respondents have also supported the decision made by the Regional Development Authority. They have brought evidence on record to show that after due deliberations and on their applications a decision in their favour has been taken. They have already executed all the documents and paid the price demanded by the respondents. Now they have a valid, legal right, title and interest to claim possession of this property. They also submit that merely because the petitioners have been in illegal occupancy of the flats it does not give them right to claim ownership now. The present application is only a ploy to deny the legitimate right created in their favour by the Regional Development Authority. 6. The question therefore now arises in view of the above rival positions whether the petitioners have a right to claim settlement in their favour in the background under which they have been in occupation of the flats. They do not dispute that they had been inducted as tenants by the original allottees without any information or permission from the Regional Development Authority. The right which they are claiming in the present writ application emerges from the fact that they have been in actual physical possession of the flats for a long period of time may not be legal. The right which they are claiming in the present writ application emerges from the fact that they have been in actual physical possession of the flats for a long period of time may not be legal. But does it give them a right to continue and demand a settlement in their favour? In the opinion of this Court the only right which the petitioners have is the right of consideration which was done. If in the totality of the facts and circumstances the official respondents have decided to settle the flats in favour of new allottees who have met the requirements, the Court cannot come in their way of claiming possession. Any direction to the respondents to cancel the allotment made in favour of the private respondents or re-allot the same to the petitioners would amount to granting legitimacy to an illegal act committed by the petitioners. There is no relationship between the petitioners and the official respondents. The original allottees are not before this Court. If they had made any grievance against the decision of cancellation there could have been an occasion to consider the validity of such step taken by the Regional Development Authority. In the opinion of the Court the petitioners have failed to make out a case both in fact as well as in law to allow them relief by way of present writ application. 7. The writ application is totally misplaced and it is dismissed accordingly.