IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1478 of 2010 1. SRI PARIMAL KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BIMLENDRA PRASAD SINHA R/O BIJAYA BHAWAN, OFF FRASER ROAD, P.S KOTWALI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, PATNA 2. THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION null THROUGH THE TOWN COMMISSIONER, HVING OFFICE AT MAURYA LOK COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, P.S KOTWALI AND DISTT- PATNA 3. THE TOWN COMMISSIONER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HAVING OFFICE AT MAURYA LOK COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, DAK BUNGALOW ROD, P.S KOTWALI AND DISTT- PATNA 4. SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE GIRISH NANDAN PRASAD SINGH R/O BIJAYA BHAWAN, OFF FRASER ROAD, P.S- KOTWALI, DISTT- PATNA 5. M/S APRAJITA DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR RAVI SHANKAR SINHA, HAVING ITS OFFIE AT JAGAT NARAYAN ROAD, P.S KADAMKUAN, DISTT- PATNA 6. SRI NANHE KUMAR MANAGING PARTER OF M/S APRAJITA DEVELOPER, SON OF LATE RAM AUTAR LALL, R/O B/3, APRAJITA APARTMENT ,PHASE II, KHAJPURA, DISTT- PATNA ----------- 4 25.03.2010 Petitioner’s grand uncle, namely, late Awadheshwar Prasad Sinha is alleged to have had some immoveable property. In his lifetime, late Awadheshwar Prasad Sinha created a Trust in respect of the said property of which he, his sister Devi Mukhi Devi and his sister’s son Kameshwar Prasad Singh were the trustees as well as the beneficiaries. In due course of time, the said late Awadheshwar Prasad Sinha died leaving behind Devi Mukhi Devi and Kameshwar Prasad Singh as the two trustees. One of the trustees Devi Mukhi Devi then decided to develop the property. She entered into a development agreement with M/s Aprajita Developers Private Limited (respondents No 5 and 6 respectively). She applied to the Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA), as it then existed, for sanction of a multi- 2 storeyed building. The sanction was granted in her name. Once the construction started, the writ petitioner objected on the ground that he was a reversioner in respect of the said property and the trustees had no right to enter development agreement and transfer the property to third party as per the trustee. This led to a civil suit being filed by the petitioner which was ultimately decreed holding that the development agreement was invalid being in contravention of the trust deed and the powers conferred on the trustees. The surviving trustee Shri Kameshwar Prasad Singh then filed an appeal against the judgment but, with leave of Court, withdrew the same. Once the appeal was withdrawn, the said Kameshwar Prasad Singh, the sole surviving trustee made an application for revalidation of the building plan which had since stood expired. Petitioner applied for cancellation of the sanction of building plan to PRDA but as PRDA was totally non- responsive, petitioner came to this Court in a writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of without notice to the private respondents directing the Patna Municipal Corporation (PMC) which succeeded PRDA to hear the parties and take a decision in the matter within a period of six months. Petitioner appeared before the PMC. He was heard but without concluding the hearing, PMC granted revalidation of the sanction in favour of Kameshwar Prasad Singh (respondent No 4 of this writ petition). This has brought the petitioner to this Court challenging the actions of PMC in granting revalidation. In the meantime, 3 Kameshwar Prasad Singh and some other entered into a fresh development agreement with the same builder on fresh terms. Before this Court, Kameshwar Prasad Singh, the builder had appeared and filed various affidavits. Heared Shri J S Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S S Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No 4 Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Mr Sandeep Kumar for respondents No 5 and 6. Various contentions have been raised in regard to the rights of parties. Whether the private trust would be dissolved or not? Whether trustees, who were also beneficiaries, should walk out or not? Whether the trustee could dissolve the trust and hand over the property to other heirs of late Awadheshwar Prasad Sinha? Whether the deed of revocation is antedated? Whether the PMC should have granted revalidation or not? All these questions, in my view, depend on rights of parties inter se. But apparently one thing is clear. The Civil Court did not invalidate the sanction in the name of Devi Mukhi Devi though it invalidated the development agreement as entered into by her with respondents No 5 and 6. The revalidation was granted in the name of Kameshwar Prasad Singh in the capacity of trustee. Whether on the own showing of Kameshwar Prasad Singh, such a trust was there or not? All these are questions exclusively of private law domain inter se between petitioner who is a mere reversioner and 4 Kameshwar Prasad Singh who is not only a beneficiary trustee but also a successor to the property of late Awadheshwar Prasad Sinha. In opinion of this Court, this Court is inapt in this jurisdiction to decide these controversial facts and their legal effect. It would be open to the parties to resort to such remedy as they may be advised for such relief and subject to such orders that may be passed. As parties are being relegated to other remedies, it will be open for them to seek such relief as they may be advised. Any observation made in this order will not be taken as a finding by this Court to the prejudice of any party as this Court has not gone into various disputed aspects of the case. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)