ORAL ORDER The two petitioners who are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of civil construction activities have chosen to move this Court questioning amongst others, the order dated 10.8.2013/20.9.2013 passed by the respondent No.2, the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2013 filed by the respondent No.6 bearing Memo No. 3792 dated 24.9.2013 whereby the respondent Commissioner has been pleased to cancel the revised sanction plan submitted on behalf of the petitioners on 7.11.2012 as well as the original sanction plan dated 16.2.2011 as contained in Annexure-2. 2. For arriving at a just conclusion it would be necessary to briefly enumerate the sequence of events leading to the order impugned in this application as manifest from the records. 3. One Rai Bahadur T.N.Banerjee purchased 141 kathas of agricultural land situated at Bailey road, Patna in the year 1940-41. The land owner passed away on 28.7.1966 and the property in question was inherited by his only son Dr. P.K. Banarjee. The said Dr. P.K. Banerjee executed two registered deeds of gift in favour of his two daughters admeasuring 62.5 decimals each from his total holding of 141 kathas in the year 1976-77. 4. The Collector, Patna initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 however upon repeal of the said Act in the year 2007, the proceedings were dropped. 5. In between, three agreements for sale was entered into between the land owners and Ramesh Prasad and Vijay Prakash for sale of their shares on a consideration of Rs. 2.50 lacs per katha and pursuant whereto, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was handed over to the land owner by way of advance consideration. The three agreements to sale are placed at Annexure 11 series and are dated 16.11.1998, 23,12.1998 and 3.1.1999. 6. One of the co-vendee to the agreement to sale namely Ramesh Prasad died in a car accident in October, 1999. Since the expression ‘vendee’ included the legal representative/legal heirs, the co-vendee namely Vijay Prakash along with the widow of Ramesh Prasad namely Pratibha Prasad who is the respondent No.6 herein by a written document offered to enhance the consideration amount to Rs. 4.08 lacs per katha as the circle rate at the relevant time was Rs. 4 lac per katha. Since the expression ‘vendee’ included the legal representative/legal heirs, the co-vendee namely Vijay Prakash along with the widow of Ramesh Prasad namely Pratibha Prasad who is the respondent No.6 herein by a written document offered to enhance the consideration amount to Rs. 4.08 lacs per katha as the circle rate at the relevant time was Rs. 4 lac per katha. It is stated that the land owners initially declined to accept the offer but after rounds of negotiation, they agreed to sale the land in question at the rate of Rs. 13 lacs per katha subject to the condition that if the said consideration amount was not paid on or before 6.6.2008, all previous agreements between the parties would stand cancelled. The agreement was reduced to writing and copy whereof is part of Annexure-11 series at page 327. 7. It is the case of petitioners that the vendees failed to honour their commitment and as a consequence the land owners terminated the agreements and communicated their decision through letter dated 7.6.2008. Following the termination of agreement, the land owners executed four registered sale deeds before the District Sub Registrar, Patna in favour of the petitioners and one another, copy whereof is placed at Annexures-D, E, F and G to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 and the vacant peaceful physical possession of the entire area admeasuring 141 kathas was handed over to them. Following the transfer of ownership, the land in question was mutated in the name of the petitioners in the revenue records as well as the records of the Municipal Corporation. 8. After acquiring title, ownership and possession over the land in question, the petitioners submitted a planning report before the respondent-Corporation on 18.3.2010 duly certified by their Architect and which was followed by an affidavit sworn under Section 38 of the erstwhile Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 stating therein that the land was free from any encumbrances. 9. In between, three title suits were filed at the instance of the respondent No.6 along with co-vendee giving rise to Title Suit Nos. 118, 119 and 120 of 2008 praying for a decree of specific performance of contract by the original land owners in the light of the agreement to sale entered into between the parties. 9. In between, three title suits were filed at the instance of the respondent No.6 along with co-vendee giving rise to Title Suit Nos. 118, 119 and 120 of 2008 praying for a decree of specific performance of contract by the original land owners in the light of the agreement to sale entered into between the parties. It is not in dispute that at the stage of filing of the suit, the petitioners were neither arraigned as defendants nor the sale deeds executed by the original owners in their favour were put to challenge as is manifest from the plaint placed at Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.6. 10. A paper publication by way of substituted service on the petitioners was made on 12.01.2012 and upon gathering information about the same, the petitioners filed their show cause/written statement on 21.5.2012 in Title Suit No. 118 and 120 of 2008. The respondent No.6 filed injunction applications for restraining the petitioners in proceeding further with the matter however the matter is yet pending consideration before the trial Court. 11. The respondent no.6 not only initiated civil litigation but also filed a criminal complaint against the original land owners bearing Complaint Case No. 1848C of 2008 in which cognizance was taken on 25.8.2008 and which was challenged by the landowners in Cr.W.J.C. No. 793 of 2009, which was allowed on 5.4.2012 by a bench of this Court and the order taking cognizance was set aside. 12. On the other hand the certified Architect of the petitioners approved the building plan and which was submitted together with statutory fees on 16.2.2011 and received in the office of the Corporation on 23.2.2011. A revised building plan dated 7.11.2012 duly approved by the certified architect was subsequently submitted together with the statutory fees paid through Bank Drafts in the office of the Corporation and was received on 8.11.2012. 13. Even when the prayer for injunction was pending consideration in the Civil Court and the complaint case had been quashed, the respondent No.6 filed an appropriate application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar vide order passed on 7.2.2013 declined the prayer of the respondent No.6. 13. Even when the prayer for injunction was pending consideration in the Civil Court and the complaint case had been quashed, the respondent No.6 filed an appropriate application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar vide order passed on 7.2.2013 declined the prayer of the respondent No.6. Undeterred by the adversities, the present complaint was filed before the respondent-Commissioner by the respondent No.6 for cancellation of the maps submitted on behalf of the petitioners and copy whereof is placed at Annexure-5. It was the contention of the respondent No.6 that the petitioners had obtained sanction by misrepresentation and giving false statements and in view of the provisions of paragraph 11.1 of the Building Bye Laws the Commissioner was vested with jurisdiction to cancel any sanctioned building plan which had been obtained upon misrepresentation of facts or after making fraudulent statement. 14. Here it would be needful to mention that although the bye laws were framed under the erstwhile Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 which stood repealed under Section 488 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 but Sub Section 4(b) thereof saves the bye laws framed under the repealed Act. 15. A show cause was issued to the petitioners on 26.4.2013 enclosing the complaint filed by the respondent No. 6 and requiring them to respond to the same by enclosing the sanctioned maps as well as the relevant papers connected with the title suit. Copy of the complaint filed by the respondent No.6 and the notice issued by the Vigilance Officer of the Corporation are placed at Annexures 5 and 5A respectively. 16. The respondent No.6 at the same time also filed writ petition in this Court giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 11237 of 2013 seeking appropriate directions and which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 18.7.2013 with direction to the respondent Municipal Commissioner to pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties on 20.7.2013. Since no order was passed by the Municipal Commissioner in terms of the direction passed in the writ petition as contained in Annexure-8, the respondent No.6 filed a contempt application bearing M.J.C. No. 4204 of 2013 on 8.8.2013 and while the contempt application was pending, the respondent–Commissioner passed the order impugned on 10.8.2013/20.9.2013 after hearing the parties and receiving written statements. The said development being placed, the contempt application was dismissed on 25.9.2013. The said development being placed, the contempt application was dismissed on 25.9.2013. 17. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Srivastava has appeared for the petitioners, the respondent -Corporation is represented by Mr. H.S. Himkar while the private respondent No.6 has been represented by Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kamla Kant Advocate. 18. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 as to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the provisions underlying Section 323 of the Bihar Municipal Act which provides a remedy of appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner relatable to demolition and stoppage of building or works. 19. Mr. Giri, responding to the preliminary objection submitted that the remedy of appeal is only available to an aggrieved under the circumstances described in the very provision and which does not cover cases in which a sanction map has been cancelled. It was submitted that it was only in cases where erection of any building or execution of work commenced/carried on or completed, is without or contrary to sanction as per Section 314 or is in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations thereunder and an order for restraining/demolition of building is passed that an aggrieved has a remedy of appeal under Sub Section 3 of Section 323 but not in circumstances governing the present case. It was thus sought to be submitted that in cases where a sanction map is cancelled for whatever reason, there is no remedy available under the Act or Rules framed thereunder and hence there is no legal infirmity in the petitioner approaching this Court under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 20. Adverting to the merits of the case it was submitted that not only the respondent No.6 had no locus to file any complaint but even on merits neither the allegation are sustainable nor is its confirmation by way of the impugned order. 20. Adverting to the merits of the case it was submitted that not only the respondent No.6 had no locus to file any complaint but even on merits neither the allegation are sustainable nor is its confirmation by way of the impugned order. Referring to the complaint placed at Annexure-4 of the writ application, it was submitted that the sum and substance of the allegation circles around the pending civil litigations and it is the allegation of the respondent No.6 that the non disclosure thereof by the petitioners before the Corporation, amounted to concealment and misrepresentation of fact inasmuch as where there was a dispute as to the title of the land, pending consideration before the Civil Court, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to disclose the same in their application filed for grant of sanction of the map and their failure to do so makes them liable for cancellation of the maps in terms of paragraph 11.1 of the Building Bye Laws. It was contended by Mr. Giri that the respondent-Commissioner has got swayed by the allegations without appreciating the legal implications. It was the contention of Mr. Giri that the impugned order was passed on grounds that the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 24.9.2010 before the Municipal Commissioner containing the declaration that there was no case pending before any Court, was a misrepresentation and concealment of the factual position, which is not correct for the reason that the affidavit was in terms of Section 38 of the repealed Bihar Regional Development Authority Act 1981 and in fact was not required to be filed after the repeal and enforcement of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007. It was contended that even otherwise, there is no concealment or misrepresentation in the affidavit which was filed on 24.9.2010 inasmuch as neither at that stage the petitioners were arraigned as defendants in the pending title suit nor any relief of cancellation of the sale deeds had been prayed by the respondent No.6 affecting the rights of the petitioner. It was thus sought to be canvassed that neither there was any concealment nor misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners nor the current Municipal Act required submission of any such affidavit. 21. Mr. It was thus sought to be canvassed that neither there was any concealment nor misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners nor the current Municipal Act required submission of any such affidavit. 21. Mr. Giri referred to paragraph 2.48 of the Building Bye Laws to submit that the term ‘owner’ as defined thereunder means a person who has a legal right over the land or building and since there is no dispute as to the title of the vendors and by virtue of the registered sale deeds, the petitioners have stepped into the shoes of the original owners hence they have become the title holders. With reference to paragraph 4.2 of the bye laws it was submitted that law merely required the petitioners who had become the title holders, to submit their application in the format prescribed under Appendix A and B which nowhere required the petitioner to make disclosure of the pending litigations. With reference to paragraphs 5 and 5.3 of the bye laws it was submitted that the requirement of law as provided under the paragraph has been duly complied by the petitioners which inter-alia required him to submit an attested copy of the sale deed together with the mutation document. With reference to paragraph 6.4.1 and paragraph 10 of the bye laws it was submitted that even after the sanction of the original plan, the petitioners had a right to submit a revised plan if it intended to deviate from the original building plan but for the same, the concerned party was required to obtain permission from the authority and which has been duly obtained by the petitioners. It is stated that there is no charge on the part of the petitioners of non fulfillments of the statutory requirements rather the order has been passed in complete ignorance of the statutory provisions as well as the rights vested in the petitioners thereunder. It is stated that there is no charge on the part of the petitioners of non fulfillments of the statutory requirements rather the order has been passed in complete ignorance of the statutory provisions as well as the rights vested in the petitioners thereunder. It was thus the contention of the petitioners that whereas the reliance of the Commissioner on the affidavit was completely misconceived in absence of any provision under the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 requiring the petitioner to file any affidavit, on the other hand in absence of any lacuna on the part of the petitioners in fulfilling the statutory requirements for obtaining sanction on the maps in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 read with the Building Bye Laws which stand saved under the present Act, there was no occasion to interfere with the same. In so far as the reliance by the Commissioner on the Committee report dated 26.6.2013 is concerned, it was submitted that the report is ex parte and has been prepared without notice to the petitioners and thus unsustainable. 22. Despite the orders of this Court requiring the Patna Municipal Corporation to file its counter affidavit, neither any counter affidavit was filed on their behalf nor any prayer was made in this regard. On the contrary, Mr. H.S. Himkar, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation conceded that he would not be in a position to justify the impugned order and the conclusion drawn therein. 23. The arguments of Mr. Giri however was vehemently contested by Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the private respondent whose entire arguments encircled around paragraph 11.1 of the Building Bye Laws. The sole argument of the respondent No. 6 is that the petitioners had all information about the pending litigations and thus they were duty bound to divulge the same at the time of filing of the application for obtaining sanction on the maps. It is the contention of Mr. Prasad that the non disclosure is a positive act of suppression by the petitioners and which alone justifies the impugned order. 24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 25. Although extensive arguments have been advanced by Mr. It is the contention of Mr. Prasad that the non disclosure is a positive act of suppression by the petitioners and which alone justifies the impugned order. 24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 25. Although extensive arguments have been advanced by Mr. Giri but the core issue is whether there was any suppression or concealment on the part of the petitioner warranting any action under paragraph 11.1 of the Building Bye Laws and whether the Commissioner could have relied upon the three member Committee report dated 26.6.2013. 26. As already indicated by me hereinabove, the Building Bye Laws though were framed under the erstwhile Bihar Regional Development Authority Act but they have been saved under Section 488 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 and thus have a statutory binding force. Paragraph 11.1 does not refer to any statutory provision rather simply vests power in an authority to cancel any permission if it is satisfied that the same was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in an application given by an applicant. Thus even if the affidavit was purportedly filed under Section 38 of the erstwhile Bihar Regional Development Authority Act but the contents therein would be binding on the petitioners. The question is whether the said affidavit contained any false statement or any misrepresentation. That as of today the petitioners are lawful owners of the land in question, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the registered sale deeds suffer from no legal infirmity. The vendor of the said sale deed had title to execute the same and the same stands transferred in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the positive act of the transaction and as a consequence the petitioners hold a valid title over the land in question. Thus the petitioner is an owner under paragraph 2.48 of the Building Bye Laws and fully entitled to file an application for development of the land and seek building permit under paragraph 4. That the petitioners have duly complied with the statutory requirements in submission of the building map duly approved by a certified architect is not in dispute. That the petitioners have a right to submit a revised plan under paragraph 10 is again not in dispute. That the petitioners have duly complied with the statutory requirements in submission of the building map duly approved by a certified architect is not in dispute. That the petitioners have a right to submit a revised plan under paragraph 10 is again not in dispute. That the petitioners have submitted the required fees is again not in question. That the maps including the revised map have been examined and duly approved by the statutory authority by according sanction is also a matter of record. 27. In the aforementioned uncontested position, the only power which vested in the Commissioner to interfere in the settled position is paragraph 11.1 of the Building Bye Laws in as much as no other provisions have been brought to the notice of the Court which vested jurisdiction in the Commissioner to cancel a sanctioned map. Paragraph 11.1 of the Building Bye Laws simply grants jurisdiction on the Commissioner to cancel the permission only on grounds of material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement in the application. 28. The sequence of events has been dealt by me hereinabove and it is self eloquent that on the date on which the affidavit was filed by the petitioner i.e. 26.9.2010, neither the petitioners were a party to the pending civil litigations nor they had been noticed. On the contrary the paper publication by way of substituted service was published only on 12.1.2012 and following which the petitioners registered their appearance on 21.5.2012. It is thus manifestly evident that the petitioners not being party to the litigations with no relief claimed against them, the declaration made on their behalf in the affidavit that there was no case pending in any Court, neither suffered from any misrepresentation nor was a fraudulent statement. Even otherwise a suit for specific performance is a suit inter parties between the parties to the agreement to sale and not beyond that. In the opinion of this Court the complaint filed by the respondent No.6 was rather speculative inasmuch as even before any right so claimed by the respondent no.6 stood crystallized under a decree of a competent civil Court on the suit filed by her, she has adopted all possible avenues to obstruct the right of the petitioners flowing from the registered sale deeds. 29. 29. Another omission on the part of the respondent commissioner is his failure to take notice of the fact that the petitioners fulfilled the statutory requirements while filing the application for development/building permit as provided under paragraph 4 read with Appendix A and B, paragraphs 5, 6 and paragraph 10 of the Building Bye Laws. 30. As observed earlier, the impugned order reflects that the maps have been cancelled on two grounds namely: (a) That material misrepresentation and fraudulent statements had been made by the petitioners in their application by non disclosure of the pending litigations filed at the instance of the respondent No.6; and (b) The discrepancies noticed in the three Member Committee report dated 26.6.2013 placed at Annexure-1/A. 31. Now whereas in the opinion of this Court there was no misrepresentation or fraudulent statement in the affidavit of the petitioners warranting action under paragraph 11.1 of the bye laws noticeably, even when the discrepancies reported by the three Member Committee has been assigned as one of the grounds for passing the impugned order, the show cause notice issued by the Vigilance Officer of the Corporation dated 26.4.2013 placed at Annexure-5A nowhere requires the petitioner to respond to the same nor does it reflect whether a copy of the report accompanied the show cause. In fact the report dated 26.6.2013 could not have been a part of the show cause for it was prepared subsequently. It is for this reason that the petitioners in paragraph 12 of the writ petition have specifically stated that show cause notice dated 26.4.2013 was forwarded to the petitioners along with the complaint requiring them to respond to the allegations. It is thus clear that the conclusion drawn by the respondent Commissioner for passing the impugned order relying on the three Member Committee report dated 26.6.2013 was not a subject matter of the show cause forwarded to the petitioners and on this account alone the findings on the said issue cannot be upheld. The legal position being as such, even otherwise the records manifests that the petitioners duly responded to the discrepancies noted in the three member Committee report which is reflected from the statement made in paragraph 4 onwards of the comprehensive written statements placed at Annexure-9 and which has not been dealt by the respondent Commissioner while passing the impugned order. 32. 32. For the reasons aforementioned, the order impugned cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside. 33. The writ application is allowed.