IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.154 of 2009 Kaushalya Devi w/o Bharat Bhusan Singh, r/o village – Rahmatpur Basa, P.S. – Asarganj, District – Munger, at present residing at Patna at Kankarbagh, P.S. – Kankarbagh, Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Patna Regional Development Authority, Patna, through its Chairman 3. The Vice Chairman, PRDA, Patna ----------- For the appellant: Mr.Ras Bihari Thakur, Advocate For the respondents: None 2 6-3-2009 Writ petitioner – appellant aggrieved by the order dated 4.12.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.10007 of 1993, has preferred this appeal under Clause – 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that by a deed of lease , a piece of land was allocated to the petitioner – appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”). However, its possession was not given to her and later on by a resolution the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking enforcement of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the writ petition is not an - 2 - appropriate remedy for the relief claimed in and remedy lies before a court of competent civil jurisdiction. Mr. Ras Bihari Thakur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that although later on the Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”) has resolved to annul the petitioner’s allotment of land but the lease deed has not been rescinded and, in that view of the matter, the rights flowing from the lease deed is fit to be enforced by a writ court. The effect of the resolution of the Authority cancelling allotment of land deserves to be gone into before any relief could be granted to the petitioner. Further, it is not known as to the status of the land, which was the subject matter of lease. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in refusing to exercise the writ jurisdiction and relegating the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the court of competent civil jurisdiction. We do not find any merit in this appeal. - 3 - It is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/- C. K. Prasad, ACJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J.