Kanhaiya Kumar Patwa And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard Mr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are 40 in number, Mr. Nikesh Kumar for Respondent No. 4 / District Board, Saran

and Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey for Respondent No. 5 / Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Dighwara at Saran.

The petitioners were allotted shops which were to be constructed on the land of Zila Parishad situated on the northern side of the feeder road of

Dighwara Railway Station, pursuant to the general notice issued in that regard. The petitioners had filled up the application form and had also

deposited the money required for being considered for being allotted such shops. Midway i.e. before the construction could be completed, the half

constructed structure was occupied by encroachers and therefore, the further construction of the shops was stopped on this premise, namely,

encroachment. Since the petitioners had spent money and had also deposited extra money under protest as enhanced cost of the shops, they came

rushing to this Court under Public Interest Litigation forum for a direction to the concerned respondents for removing the encroachment from the

aforesaid structure so that construction could begin in right earnest and thereafter shops be allotted to the respective buyers / allottees / petitioners.

With the orders of the Court, the encroachment was removed and the writ petition (PIL; C.W.J.C. No. 307 of 2012) stood disposed off.

Thereafter, a dispute erupted with respect to further construction because of the map supplied by Respondent No. 5 being against the building bye-

laws and regulations.

A Bench of this Court, while dealing with this case, found that the issues could be resolved by authorities, viz., Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sitting across

the table and removing the stalemate.

The revised map was supplied by Respondent No. 5, which has been acted upon and construction has been completed.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some parts of the construction still remains unfinished which ought to be completed before

the same are handed over to the petitioners but after some arguments, the aforesaid stand on behalf of the petitioners is dropped for the reason that

much time has elapsed since they were allotted the shops and today when the shops are almost complete and are required to be handed over to the

petitioners.

Another attempt was made by Mr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners to keep the issue with respect to return of the extra amount

which was deposited under protest open so that it could be raised at other time in a different forum, but realising the futility of such stand especially in

view of the fact that only the petitioners would be the losers in case of any delay in handing over of such shops which stood allotted to them long time

before, such stand also has been dropped by him.

As on date, the respondent no. 4 is ready to hand over the allotted shops to the petitioners on “as is where is†basis and the petitioners also agree

and accept to take possession of those shops when the same would be handed over to them.

With this situation at hand, there does not remain any dispute for this writ petition to be kept pending.

Mr. Nikesh Kumar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 4 submits that the respective shops shall be handed over to the petitioners within a period

of two weeks and the petitioners shall, in token of having been handed over their respective shops, shall endorse their acceptance which shall be to the

full and final satisfaction of the parties.

With the aforesaid observation / direction, this petition stands disposed off.