Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1692 (PAT)

Ranjeet Kumar Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2012-12-14

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Senior counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by letter no.8814 dated 26.9.2011, Annexure-13 issued by the Manager Estate of the Board whereunder information has been given to the petitioner that allotment of plot no.8M/33 in favour of late Renuka Devi as is evident from registered Hire Purchase Agreement was cancelled by State Government under letter no.1219 dated 19.8.1994, wrongly mentioned in the impugned communication as 19.8.2004. Aforesaid communication is being assailed on the ground that Board having allotted the plot in question in favour of Renuka Devi entered into Hire Purchase Agreement dated 16.8.1991, Annexure-7 executed by and between the authorities of the Board and Smt. Renuka Devi. Once the agreement was executed and registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, the same could not have been cancelled under the orders of the Government contained in letter no.1219 dated 19.8.1994, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit as having executed registered Hire Purchase Agreement the same could have been annulled by the competent authority of the Board or the Government for violation of the terms of Hire Purchase Agreement but from perusal of Government letter dated 19.8.1994, Annexure-A it does not appear that terms of Hire Purchase Agreement dated 16.8.1991 has been violated by Smt. Renuka Devi. 3. Counsel for the Board, however, defended the cancellation of the settlement/execution of the registered Hire Purchase Agreement with reference to the order dated 19.8.1994 passed with the approval of the Government on the ground that allotment itself was against the Rules and once the allotment was against the Rules the Government has the power to cancel the same. In this connection, learned senior counsel also referred to the notice issued by the authorities of the Board contained in letter no.961 dated 4.4.1996, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit in the light of the Government order dated 19.8.1994, wrongly typed in the notice dated 4.4.1996 as letter no.1219 dated 12.8.1994. 4. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the Board having executed the Hire Purchase Agreement which was registered on 16.8.1991, the same could not have been cancelled on the ground that the allotment itself was illegal and contrary to Rules. 4. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the Board having executed the Hire Purchase Agreement which was registered on 16.8.1991, the same could not have been cancelled on the ground that the allotment itself was illegal and contrary to Rules. In case, the Government and the Board were of the opinion that the settlement, registered agreement was itself contrary to the Rules of the Board it was for the Government and the Board to have sought necessary declaration from the competent civil court. 5. I see substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Having executed Hire Purchase Agreement which was registered on 16.8.1991 the same could have been annulled by the Government or the Board only on the ground of violation of Clause 23 of the agreement. From perusal of communication contained in letter no. 8814 dated 26.9.2011, Annexure-13 and letter no.1219 dated 19.8.1994 it does not appear that Smt. Renuka Devi ever violated terms of Clause 23 of the Hire Purchase Agreement registered in her favour, in the circumstances, the same could not have been cancelled by the Government or the Board. For the reasons indicated above, I have no option but to cancel the letter dated 19.8.1994 to the extent it concerns Smt. Renuka Devi as also communication dated 26.9.2011, Annexure-13 with observation that until Hire Purchase Agreement dated 16.8.1991 is annulled by the competent court of civil jurisdiction the Board authorities should not intermeddle with the possession of the petitioner over the plot in question. It goes without saying that findings recorded in this order is on the basis of the admitted position that petitioner is not alleged to have violated any of the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 16.8.1991, Annexure-7. 6. The writ petition is allowed with observations and directions aforesaid.