Case Background
The petitioner’s land at Bahadurpur in Patna, measuring 0.045 acre in plot no. 740, khata no. 256, thana no. 10, was acquired in 1979 for the Bihar State Housing Board. Compensation for this acquisition was paid through the Land Acquisition Officer.
According to the petitioner, after his land was taken, he became landless and applied to the Bihar State Housing Board for allotment of a residential plot in Bahadurpur area, Patna. His application was registered and a receipt was issued.
The Housing Board processed applications under its Middle Income Group (MIG) scheme on a lottery basis. On this basis, and keeping in view his status as a land loser, MIG Plot No. 10M/116 in Digha Housing Colony, Patna, was allotted to him by letter no. 671 dated 20.07.1991.
However, the petitioner did not get physical possession of any plot. The allotment at Digha was later affected by large-scale disputes and the Digha Acquired Land Settlement Act, 2010. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition was that he remained without any plot despite his land having been acquired, and he sought an alternative plot at Bahadurpur as a land loser.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court examined the petitioner’s claim that, as a land loser, he had a right to priority allotment under the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation and that the Housing Board had failed to honour this right in practice.
The petitioner pointed to Rule 10(A)(1) of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation, which gives priority in allotment to persons whose land has been acquired for housing schemes. He argued that this provision entitled him to a plot in the Bahadurpur Housing Colony when his original land there was acquired.
He further stated that, although the Housing Board had allotted him MIG Plot No. 10M/116 at Digha Housing Colony, he never received physical possession because of acquisition-related disputes in Rajeev Nagar/Digha areas. A proposal was later discussed in Board meetings to shift his allotment to Bahadurpur Housing Colony, but this was never implemented.
The petitioner also relied on how other similarly placed land-losers had been treated. He stated that some persons placed at serial nos. 23 and 24 in the waiting list, namely Nand Lal Tibriwal and Ashok Kumar Sah, obtained plots after directions of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4969 of 1996 by order dated 24.09.1998, which was upheld up to the Supreme Court. Likewise, one Angiri Devi and one Angeer Devi, after approaching the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10340 of 2003, were also allotted plots.
In his case, the petitioner alleged that the Housing Board in its second counter affidavit attempted to differentiate his case from those earlier cases and took a fresh stand that he was ineligible because his wife owned a MIG plot at Bahadurpur Housing Colony. This objection was founded on Regulation 8(d) of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation, 1983.
The Housing Board, on the other hand, argued that it had already given the petitioner the benefit of “priority” as a land loser when it first allotted MIG Plot No. 10M/116 at Digha Housing Colony by letter dated 20.07.1991. According to the Board, this allotment was properly communicated to the petitioner, but he neither deposited the initial amount of the tentative price nor executed any agreement with the Board for the said plot.
Instead, on 09.02.2001, the petitioner submitted an application seeking a MIG plot at Bahadurpur Housing Colony in place of the Digha plot. The Board claimed that his later request could not be treated as of right.
The Housing Board also asserted that the petitioner’s wife had purchased, on free-hold basis, a dwelling unit in MIG Plot No. 8M/28 in Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna. Under Regulation 8 of the 1983 Regulations, a house or site is to be allotted only to those who, along with their spouse and dependent minor children, do not own any land or house within 8 kilometres of the municipal area or housing estate for which they are applying.
On this basis the Board maintained that, in terms of Regulation 8(d), the petitioner was not eligible for any fresh allotment or re-allotment of a plot at Bahadurpur, as his family already owned one such dwelling unit.
The Board also placed before the Court the background relating to Digha lands. It stated that about 1024.42 acres of land at Digha had been acquired by the State Government for the Housing Board with the object of developing urban housing facilities. Although this acquisition had been upheld by the Supreme Court, over time about 600 acres were allegedly taken over unlawfully by individuals and societies.
To address these problems, the Digha Acquired Land Settlement Act, 2010 was enacted, followed by the Digha Acquired Land Settlement Rules, 2014 and the Digha Acquired Land Settlement Scheme, 2014. Section 4 of the 2010 Act provided for cancellation of earlier allotments and refund of deposits with interest, and Section 5 declared that previous allotments would be deemed cancelled.
Under these legal changes, the Board said it had asked the petitioner to submit Form-C for refund of any amount deposited towards MIG Plot No. 10M/116 at Digha Housing Colony. The Board also mentioned that in an earlier case, C.W.J.C. No. 3991 of 1987, a seniority list of people whose lands were acquired had been put on record, and a committee was set up to examine their claims. Later, as it was not possible to give plots to all 45 such persons due to lack of land, the Board decided to refund their money. Some of those allottees, such as Ramashray Prasad and Smt. Sharda Sinha, had also moved the High Court and their cases were still pending.
Finally, the Board submitted that any remaining unallotted MIG plots in Bahadurpur Housing Colony had to be allotted strictly in accordance with the 1983 Regulations, and not purely on the basis of earlier expectations.
During the hearing of the present case, the Housing Board produced a list of vacant plots in Bahadurpur area, Patna. The petitioner requested that he be allotted any one of these vacant plots in lieu of his earlier allotment in Rajeev Nagar/Digha, on the ground that the Board had failed to give him possession of the originally allotted plot for decades.
After hearing both sides, the Court noted that the petitioner’s basic relief was for an alternative plot in place of the plot already allotted to him in Rajeev Nagar/Digha. The Court accepted that the petitioner was a land loser and therefore eligible for priority allotment under Rule 10(A)(1) of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation.
The Court reasoned that once the Board had already allotted a plot to the petitioner in Rajeev Nagar after considering his application and finding him eligible, the Board could not be allowed to take advantage of its own failure to deliver possession. The inability or failure of the Board to provide possession could not now be used as a ground to deny him an alternative plot.
The Court then examined the specific objection based on the later purchase of a Housing Board plot by the petitioner’s wife. It noted that the original allotment to the petitioner was made on 20.07.1991. At that time, his wife had no property. The subsequent purchase by her took place around 2001, when the petitioner gave an affidavit that there was no land either in his or his family members’ names and that he was a land loser.
The Court held that the Board’s Regulations did not prohibit a family member of an allottee from purchasing property in later years. Therefore, the objection that the petitioner’s wife owned a plot bought about 20 years after the original allotment could not be accepted as defeating his accrued legal right.
In the Court’s view, this later acquisition by the wife did not take away the petitioner’s legal right which had already accrued because of his status as a land loser and because a specific plot (MIG 10M/116) had been allotted to him, albeit without possession.
Having reached this conclusion, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be given a plot that was vacant, free from encumbrances and litigation, and whose immediate possession could be handed over by the Housing Board.
Considering the list of vacant plots produced by the Board, the Court decided that the writ petition should succeed. It directed that Plot No. 8M/22 at Bahadurpur, Patna, which appeared at serial no. 1 in the list of vacant plots, be allotted to the petitioner.
The Court ordered that this allotment must be made within 15 days from the date the Housing Board receives or is shown a copy of the judgment. It further directed that all necessary paperwork for this allotment must be completed within the next two months. A copy of the order was to be sent to the Managing Director of the Bihar State Housing Board for compliance.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for land losers whose lands are taken for housing projects but who never receive the promised plots. The Patna High Court made it clear that once a housing authority allots a plot to a land loser, it cannot later deny an alternative plot on the ground that it failed to give possession of the original one.
The ruling also clarifies that a later purchase of a separate housing unit by a spouse does not automatically cancel the earlier right that accrued to the land loser when the first allotment was made. Regulations about not owning another property must be read in a fair and reasonable manner.
For people in Bihar whose lands have been acquired for schemes of the Bihar State Housing Board and who are waiting for plots for years, this decision shows that the Court can direct the Board to provide a clear, vacant plot with a time-bound schedule, instead of leaving them with only a refund offer.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether a land loser, already allotted a plot for which possession was never given, is entitled to an alternative plot from the Bihar State Housing Board.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that the Board cannot take advantage of its own failure to deliver possession; the petitioner, as a land loser with an earlier allotment, is entitled to an alternative vacant plot. - Issue: Whether the later purchase of a Housing Board plot by the petitioner’s wife disqualifies the petitioner from getting an alternative plot under Regulation 8 of the 1983 Regulations.
Answer: No. The Court held that the Regulations do not bar subsequent purchase by family members after an allotment has already been made, and such later purchase does not defeat the petitioner’s accrued legal right. - Issue: How should remaining vacant plots in Bahadurpur Housing Colony be dealt with in light of the petitioner’s claim.
Answer: The Court directed that one such plot, Plot No. 8M/22 at Bahadurpur, be allotted to the petitioner within a fixed timeframe, recognising his priority status as a land loser.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment records references by the petitioner to C.W.J.C. No. 4969 of 1996 and C.W.J.C. No. 10340 of 2003, and by the Housing Board to C.W.J.C. No. 3991 of 1987, C.W.J.C. No. 6643 of 2012, and C.W.J.C. No. 6336 of 2002. However, the Court’s reasoning in this judgment does not rely on or discuss any specific reported case law by name or citation.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7538 of 2021
Case Title: Shri Baj Kishore Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024(4) PLJR 562
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar
Date of Judgment: 19-01-2024
Advocates: Mr. Binay Kumar Choubey, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh (GA-3) for the respondents
Respondents: State of Bihar through Chief Secretary and officials of the Urban Development Department and Bihar State Housing Board
Nature of the case: Writ petition seeking mandamus for allotment and delivery of possession of a Middle Income Group housing plot to a land loser
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment CWJC No. 7538 of 2021
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
