IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2606 of 2007 Ram Raj Ram, Son of Late Mogal Ram, Resident of Village Moapkala, P.S. Tarari, District Bhopur. -------- Petitioner/Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner and Secretary, Building Construction and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. Sri Anwar Alam Monzoor, Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna. 3. Sri Kumar Braj Kishore Sahani, Son of Late Ramphal Prasad, Estate Officer-cum-Joint Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board,6, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna. ---------- Respondents/Opposite Parties ----------- 5 01.04.2010 Heard Mr. Durga Nand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to the violation of the order of this Court dated 23.3.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 1525 of 2000 is two fold:- (i) The authorities have made a further demand of Rs. 1,04,086/- by a notice dated 19.01.2010. (ii) The authorities till date have not executed the registered document for the plot in question allotted to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, none of these two grievances would be 2 remotely connected with the direction which was given by this Court in the connected writ application, the operative portion whereof reads as follows:- “------In those circumstances, Annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed. The Board and the State Government are directed not to interfere with such allotment of the plot of land in favour of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.” This Court, therefore, in this contempt application is not supposed to decide as to whether the fresh demand of the amount in question by the notice dated 19.01.2010 is beyond the teems and conditions of the allotment or whether the registration of the land can be made without payment of such amount. If the petitioner is so aggrieved by the cause of action in relation to the aforementioned two grievances, it will always be open for him to take appropriate remedy as is available to him in law. That being so, this contempt application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)