IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14175 of 2009 1. SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O SRI SRIKANT TIWARY MOH- BHAT BIGANA, HOLDINGNO.- 88A/114, WARD NO. 9A/32, P.S- RAMPUR,DISTT- GAYA 2. CHANDRAKANTI DEVI W/O SRI RAMJI PRASAD BHAGAT MOH-BHAT BIGAHA, HOLDING NO. 8813, WARD NO. 9A/32, P.S- RAMPUR, DISTT- GAYA 3. ANJUBALA SHARMA W/O SRI AJAY KUMAR SHARMA MOH-BHAT BIGAHA, HOUSE NO. 119, HOLDING NO. 95/90, WARD NO. 9A/32, P.S- RAMPUR, DISTT- GAYA 4. SHAKUNTALA SHARMA W/O SRI MANOHAR SHARMA MOH- BHAT BIGAHA, HOLDING NO. 116, WARD NO. 9A/32, P.S- RAMPUR, DISTT- GAYA 5. AJAY SHARMA S/O LATE RAM CHARITRA SHARMA MOH-BHAT BIGAHA, WARD NO. 9A/32, P.S- RAMPUR, DISTT- GAYA 6. DEO RANI DEVI W/O SRI RAMCHARITRA SHARMA MOH-BHAT BIGAHA, HOUSE NO. 111, WARD NO. 9A/32, P.S- RAMPUR, DISTT- GAYA 7. SAVITRI DEVI W/O SRI KRISHNA MURARI SHARMA MOH-BHAT BIGAHA, HOUSE NO. 880/109, WARD NO. 9A/32, P.S- RAMPUR, DISTT- GAYA Versus 1. THE GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA DISTT- GAYA 2. THE MAYOR THE GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA, DISTT- GAYA 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA, DISTT- GAYA 4. THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA 6. THE ESTATE OFFICER THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA ----------- 8/ 29/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the Gaya Municipal Corporation and the Bihar State Housing Board. A registered Housing Cooperative Society styled as “Gango Bigha Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd.” (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is stated to have been formed and registered in the year-1984. It acquired lands in Mouza- Katari, Tole Bhat- Bigha, Thana No. 182 by sale deed and then allotted it to its members from the year-1985 onwards. The petitioners claiming to be members of the Society purchased the lands in question - 2 - from the Society in the year-1985-86. It is their case that they even made constructions on the lands in between the years-1987-1995. No objections were raised against their title to the lands at the stage of construction. On the contrary, the Municipal Corporation mutated their names, municipal holdings were created and they have given proper electric connection etc. They have been residing on their lands ever since till they were issued a show cause notice by the Housing Board in July, 2010 that the subject lands have been acquired by it as far back as 1975-76 and for which the Society was a beneficiary for compensation in 1985-86. The petitioners submit that they were unaware of these facts and have been led up the garden path by the society. The Housing Board in its counter affidavit states that it gave notice to the Society on 1.8.1991 itself for being in wrongful occupation of the lands. The Housing Board then filed an Evection Suit No.5/91 against the Society which came to be decreed on 10.3.1995. The Secretary of the Society preferred appeal No.5/99 which has also been dismissed on 19.1.2000 and review against the same also stood rejected on 10.4.2000. Being conscious of the difficulties in law, on facts, it was urged that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers, unaware of the acquisition of the lands by - 3 - the Housing Board and payment of compensation to the Society etc. The Secretary of the Society has not been made a party respondent. The petitioners are stated to be members of the Cooperative Society who purchased lands from the Society in 1985-86 and made constructions in between 1987-1995. If the Society was given a show cause notice in 1991 and eviction suits, appeal and review was filed by it against the Housing Board, it remains a matter for discussion and findings to what extent the petitioners were aware of all these developments being members of the Housing Society. These are matters for which there are no materials in the writ petition to delve into. “Equity follows the law” is an old maxim. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they may be permitted to represent to the Housing Board. The lands on which houses of the petitioners stand but acquired earlier by the Housing Board have not been re-allotted by it to anybody else and, therefore, the Housing Board can well consider making a formal allotment in accordance with law to the petitioners themselves. They propose to represent for that purpose. Learned counsel for the Housing Board rightly submits that any such representation has to be - 4 - considered subject to the fact that the lands on which the houses of the petitioners stand have not been allotted to anyone till date and that any fresh allotment in favour of the petitioners has to be strictly in accordance with law and policies of the Board. No positive relief can be granted to the petitioners except to the extent of an observation that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case if the petitioners represent and circumstances so warrant, the Housing Board may favourably consider their representation in accordance with law without prejudice to its rights and policies. Since the petitioners claim to have their hearth and home on the lands, it is expected that the Housing Board shall not take any steps of a manner to frustrate the representation without first deciding the representation. The writ application stands disposed with observations. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)