TEMU ASPI GABBA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-1982-4-11
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on April 05,1982

TEMU ASPI GABBA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. - (1.)The petitioners claim to be settlees of some of the quarters in a colony in Adityapur, Jamshedpur of the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') (respondent No. 2) and pray by this writ application for issuing a direction to the Board to maintain the open space, as shown in the site plan, Annexure '1' to the writ application, and not to settle it for constructing buildings thereon. The Board is a statutory body formed for the purpose of making provision for housing facilities. According to the petitioners' case, a prospectus had been issued giving out the terms and conditions for allotment of houses and house plots in detail and the petitioners in response thereto made applications and have been granted settlements. The settlements were proposed to be made by reference to a site plan, a photostat copy whereof has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure '1'. On the north-western side of the plan, a piece of land running from east to west has been described as "reserved for other utility". This space has been marked out by the petitioners by red lines and is the subject-matter of the present case. According to their case, the open space was exclusively meant for the common benefit of about 70 settlees including the petitioners and they utilized the same by holding social functions and using it as children's play ground. A public water tap also was installed there by authorities. The space was not intended for putting up dwelling houses, but the respondents 2 and 3 attempted to settle the same with strangers which led to several disputes. In the circumstances, the writ application has been filed.
(2.)The petitioners' allegations regarding the nature of the space in dispute were denied on behalf of the Board and its Executive Engineer (respondent No. 3) and it was stated in their counter-affidavit that it had already been settled under registered deeds in favour of three persons. The fact that a water tap was fitted by the P. H. E. D. was admitted but it was said that it was at a corner of the plot and the P. H. E. D. people did not and could not by installing the tap determine the nature of the land. The respondents also challenged the claim of the petitioners as settlees. Annexure '1' is not accepted as the correct plan. According to their case, the correct plan is Annexure 'A' to the counter-affidavit.
(3.)The respondents 4 and 5 were added as respondents as they are claiming their right to build on the disputed space.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.