This case from the High Court of Judicature at Patna is a compelling story of a family's decades-long struggle with the Bihar State Housing Board (the "Housing Board") over a residential plot. It highlights the importance of due process, the rights of legal heirs, and how bureaucratic delays and mechanical application of rules can lead to significant injustice. The petitioner, Sanjay Mishra, challenged the Housing Board's decision to cancel the allotment of a plot to his deceased mother, primarily due to non-construction, despite a complex history of delays and the family's persistent efforts to comply.
A Legacy of Delays: The Mother's Initial Struggle
The saga began in 1980 when Sanjay Mishra's mother registered with the Housing Board for a plot, making an advance payment. She was allotted a plot (CH/27) in Sri Krishna Nagar, Patna, in 1982, and she promptly made the required payment, confirming the allotment.
However, the Housing Board itself became the first source of delay:
- No Formal Deed: Despite the allotment, the Housing Board failed to execute the formal agreement deed.
- Deferred Allotment: In response to inquiries, the Board stated that allotments were deferred.
- Repeated Information Demands: The Board repeatedly issued public notices (in 1982 and 1986) asking allottees to resubmit information, which the petitioner's mother diligently did.
- Re-allotment to Another: Shockingly, in 1988, the Board considered re-allotting the same plot (CH/27) to a State Minister, Shri Awadh Bihari Singh, despite it being allotted to the petitioner's mother.
Court Intervention and an Alternative Plot:
Aggrieved by the Housing Board's inaction and the attempt to re-allot her plot, the petitioner's mother filed a writ petition (CWJC No. 458 of 1989) in the High Court. The Court issued an interim stay on the re-allotment.
Despite the stay, the Housing Board transferred the plot to a cooperative society, forcing the mother to file a contempt petition (M.J.C. No. 72 of 2001). In 2001, the High Court directed the Housing Board to find a suitable alternative plot in Sri Krishna Nagar or a similarly situated colony and allot it at the original prevailing rate of 1989.
In compliance with this order, a new plot (No. 6H/65) in Bahadurpur, Patna, was allotted to the mother on March 2, 2002, and possession was handed over on October 1, 2002.
The Son's Inheritance and Continued Bureaucracy:
Tragically, the petitioner's mother passed away on July 12, 2003, less than a year after taking possession of the new plot.
Sanjay Mishra, her son and legal heir, promptly informed the Housing Board of his mother's demise on November 20, 2003, and made an ad-hoc payment. He continued to follow up for the transfer of the plot into his name, as other legal heirs had given their no-objection. He also made further payments as demanded by the Housing Board in 2008.
The Cancellation Order: A Bolt from the Blue:
In May 2009, the Housing Board issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, asking why non-construction on the plot should not be considered a default. Sanjay Mishra replied, explaining that construction could not commence because the plot had not yet been transferred into his name, and a construction plan could not be sanctioned without such transfer.
Despite his continuous efforts and explanations, the petitioner received a letter in December 2013, informing him that his request for transfer could not be considered because the Housing Board had already cancelled the allotment via an office order dated November 11, 2011 – an order he claimed he had never received and only learned about two years later.
The Petitioner's Arguments in Court:
Sanjay Mishra challenged the cancellation order, arguing:
- No Default on His Part: The delay in construction was not his fault but due to the Housing Board's inaction in transferring the plot to his name. Without the transfer, he could not get the construction plan sanctioned, which was a prerequisite as per the Hire-Purchase Agreement (Clause 10) and other regulations.
- Cancellation Against a Deceased Person: The cancellation order was passed against his mother, who had already passed away in 2003. An order against a deceased person is legally unsustainable.
- Violation of Natural Justice: Neither he nor his mother were parties to the previous court proceedings (CWJC No. 12376 of 2007 and M.J.C. No. 999 of 2011) that the Housing Board cited as the basis for its cancellation drive. More importantly, no notice or inquiry was conducted specifically for his case before the cancellation, violating the principles of natural justice (the right to be heard).
- Right to Property: He argued that the Housing Board's arbitrary action violated his constitutional right to property under Article 300A.
- Distinction from Other Defaulters: He pointed out that his mother's plot possession was much more recent (2002) compared to others on the defaulter list (1980s and 1990s), and his delay was "bona fide" due to the pending transfer.
The Housing Board's Defense:
The Housing Board defended its cancellation, stating:
- Construction Clause: As per the allotment letter and Hire-Purchase Agreement (Clause 10 and 12), the allottee was required to start construction within two years of possession and complete the ground floor within three years.
- Lack of Substitution Steps: They claimed the legal heir (petitioner) did not take timely steps for substitution or comply with the construction clauses.
- Court Orders: The cancellation was in compliance with previous High Court orders (CWJC No. 12376 of 2007 and M.J.C. No. 999 of 2011), which directed action against defaulting allottees who had not constructed houses within the stipulated time.
- Defective Documents: They alleged that the petitioner's documents for transfer were "defective" and required resubmission.
- Inadvertent Communications: They admitted that some later communications asking for documents for transfer were "inadvertently issued" due to the main file being unavailable and a "part file" being opened, implying they overlooked the prior cancellation.
The Court's Scathing Indictment and Verdict:
Justice Sandeep Kumar meticulously reviewed the facts and previous judgments. The Court's findings were strongly in favor of the petitioner:
- Mother's Timely Death: The Court acknowledged the undisputed fact that the original allottee died within ten months of receiving possession, and the petitioner had taken "all steps for substitution" and deposited the entire amount demanded.
- Principles of Natural Justice Violated: The Court emphasized that previous orders (like Krishna Murari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) never mandated cancellation without giving proper opportunity to the allottees or following principles of natural justice. The Housing Board was obligated to "issue notice to the petitioner, hold an enquiry before concluding that the petitioner was a defaulter."
- Precedent from Similar Case: The Court cited a direct precedent: Anil Kumar vs. Meghan Yadav and Ors. (CWJC No. 23195 of 2011), where a similar cancellation order (dated November 11, 2011, the same as in this case) was quashed. A Division Bench had upheld this, clearly stating that the Housing Board's action in 2011 was done with "undue haste" and "without application of mind" in response to a contempt proceeding. The Division Bench had found a "gross infirmity" in the Housing Board "mechanically applying the directions" without proper inquiry.
- Cancellation Against a Dead Person: The Court unequivocally stated that "the order of cancellation has been passed against a dead person which cannot be sustained."
- Bona Fide Delay: The Court accepted that the delay in construction was "bona fide" (in good faith) because the petitioner was diligently pursuing the transfer of the plot, which was a necessary step before construction could legally commence.
The Final Order:
Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the impugned cancellation order dated November 11, 2011, was "not sustainable" and accordingly set it aside.
The Court issued the following clear directions to the Bihar State Housing Board:
- Substitution: Complete the formalities of substituting Sanjay Mishra's name in place of his deceased mother as the allottee of plot No. 6H/65.
- Timeframe: This substitution must be done within two months from the date of receipt/production of the court order.
- Construction Time: The petitioner is granted two years' time to construct over the plot as per the terms of the hire-purchase agreement, starting from the date of the order.
The writ petition was allowed.
Why This Case Matters to the Public:
This judgment is a powerful affirmation of citizen rights against arbitrary bureaucratic actions:
- Due Process is Sacred: It underscores that even government bodies must follow fair procedures, issue proper notices, and conduct inquiries before taking adverse actions like canceling property allotments.
- Rights of Legal Heirs: It clarifies that the death of an original allottee does not automatically extinguish property rights, and legal heirs have a right to pursue the transfer and fulfillment of the original terms.
- Accountability for Delays: The Housing Board was held accountable for its own historical delays and its failure to process the transfer diligently, which directly contributed to the non-construction.
- No Mechanical Application of Rules: Courts will not tolerate "mechanical" application of general directives (like those from previous court orders) without considering the specific facts and circumstances of individual cases.
- Protection of Property Rights: It reinforces the constitutional protection of property rights, ensuring that individuals are not deprived of their property except through a lawful and fair process.
In essence, Sanjay Mishra's victory is a testament to the principle that justice must prevail over bureaucratic inefficiency and arbitrary decision-making, ensuring that citizens are not penalized for delays that are beyond their control.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjMxNCMyMDE2IzEjTg==-dOA9Cb5dRxo=
0 Comments