IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4568 of 2010 1. Raj Kumar Gupta S/O Mahabir Prasad Gupta R/O Moh. & P.O.- Safiabad, P.S.- Munger, Distt.- Munger Presently Residing At Moh.- Kankarbagh, Patna, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Building Construction And Housing Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Bihar State Housing Board Through Its Managing Director Patna 4. The Estate Manager Cum Joint Secretary Bihar State Housing Board,Patna 5. The Executive Engineer Patna Division No. 1, Patna, Bihar State Housing Board, Bihar, Patna ---------------------------------- 5. 05.9.2011. Heard Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Shatrughan Pandey, learned Assisting Counsel to SC-23 appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. S.K.P.Sinha, learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board. The writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities of the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) and its functionaries to deliver possession of plot no.F/422 situated at Lohia Nagar, Patna and to receive the balance amount of instalment. The said allotment along with certain other allotments came up for consideration before the Board and it was found 2 that near about 77 allotments had been made by the then Managing Director of the Board without obtaining any approval from the Board. In these circumstances, a memo dated 5.9.1991 was issued for re-examination of order of allotment of these plots. While, admitting that the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.919 in the general category under the Lower Income Group, the allotment made to the petitioner upon scrutiny was canceled after obtaining a show cause from the petitioner vide order dated 7.4.1994. The petitioner questioned the said cancellation before this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.3632 of 1994. A Division Bench of this court, upon examination of the records, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition with observation that the case of the petitioner would be considered on its own turn. It is the case of the petitioner that after this order, although the persons below him have been allotted land but his case stood ignored despite the direction of the Division Bench. The petitioner in this context submits that although the person up to serial no.966 amongst the Lower Income Group category has been provided with the land but though the petitioner’s name appears at serial no.919, his case stands ignored. 3 Mr. S.K.P.Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, upon examination of the record, submits that the statement made by the petitioner that the persons up to serial no.966 have been allotted plots at Digha, is correct and also includes the petitioner, but as there is encroachment over the land of the Board at Digha, the Board is considering options for alternative allotments and which will consume some time. He denied the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons below the petitioner have been allotted land. It is specifically contended that nobody below the petitioner in the Lower Income Group category, at Digha, have been given possession and no sooner the Board takes a final decision as regarding the alternative arrangements in relation to such of the allottees, the petitioner would also be provided with his plot in terms of the Division Bench order. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is dismissed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)