IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE NO.4934 OF 2010. JAGESHWAR PRASAD SINHA,S/O LATE RAM GOPAL LAL, R/O D-68, PEOPLE’S CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, LOHIYA NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA 800020, A PRACTICING ADVOCATE, PATNA HIGH COURT. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION(AT PRESENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT) AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & HOUSING DEPARTMENT(BHAWAN AWAS VIBHAG), STATE OF BIHAR. NOW MR. GIRISH SHANKAR THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. ………………………RESPONDENT 1ST SET/OPPOSITE PARTY. 3.MR. I.D.S. DHARIWAL, THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, ACCOUNT & CLAIM, BIHAR KARYALAYA, RANCHI-2 AT PRESENT ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR OFFICE, BEERCHAND PATEL PATH, R. BLOCK PATNA 1. ………………………RESPONDENT 2ND SET/OPPOSITE PARTY. ------------ 5 30-11-2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the opposite parties have obtained the certified copy of the deed of lease that was executed between the People’s Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd and the wife of the petitioner Smt. Savitri Sinha and the same will be handed over to the petitioner the moment he appears before Mr. Arun Kant Saran, Deputy Secretary to the Urban Development 2 Department. Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the original registered deed of lease was handed over to the department for obtaining loan and the petitioner has cleared the entire amount of loan, in all fairness it was the duty of the department to not only retain such document but also return the same to the petitioner after liquidation of the loan amount and that the Authorities have acted negligently, if not, dishonestly in misplacing the lease of deed of the petitioner. In this contempt proceeding, this Court would not like to observe anything save and except that when the connected writ application, C.W.J.C No. 3702 of 2005 was heard and disposed of on 26.02.2009, the Authorities of the department did not take a plea at that stage that the original deed of lease of the petitioner has been misplaced. Infact it is only now that when the direction given in the order of this Court dated 26.02.2009 for return of the deed of lease to the petitioner upon receiving payment of the loan amount along with 3 interest in sought to be complied that such a plea has been taken. The Principal Secretary of the department Mr. Shashi Shekhar Sharma having appeared before this Court had explained that on account of change of the Authority and the transfer of the records from one office to another, the said deed of lease was lost. Mr. Mishra, however, would submit that this is a malafide act on the part of the concerned authority of the department and in support of the same he has produced few letters, two of whom are of the petitioner and one of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Department dated 25.09.2007. The two letters of the petitioner addressed either to the Superintendent of Police, Patna with regard to entry of police party without assigning any reason on 20.10.1995 and/or the letter addressed to the General Secretary of the People’s Cooperative Colony, Kankarbagh with regard to reservation of community hall do not even remotely lead to any inference of malafide as has been suggested by Mr. Mishra. The last letter dated 25.09.2007 of the Superintending Engineer, addressed in the name 4 of Mr. Vinod Kumar Rai giving the address of the house of the petitioner, D-68, P.C Colony, Kankarbagh can not be read as threat to the ownership and possession of the petitioner, inasmuch as the said letter talks of only award of the contract to Mr. Vinod Kumar Rai and in connection of the some Mr. Rai was asked to produce the original documents which he had submitted along with his tender application. Obviously, the said letter of the Rural Development Department has got nothing to do with the title of the house in question allotted by the society in the name of the wife of the petitioner. Having held so that there was no malafide on the part of the Authorities in misplacing and/or missing of the original deed of sale, this much has to be clarified by the Court that wherever the petitioner will be required to produce the original deed of sale, the certified copy being made available to him in view of the order of the Under Secretary, Sri Arun Kant Saran, Secretary to the Government will carry same weightage as that of the original document/deed of sale. It is 5 however, made clear that if such deed in question would be rescinded/cancelled/modified by the people. co-operative Society the party to the deed in question the resultant dispute would be adjudicated/ decided as per its own merit without being influenced by any thing said in order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. RANJAN (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)