IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10471 of 2001 =========================================================== Dineshwar Nath Sahay, S/o Late Raghu Nath Sahay, R/o Qr. No. E-48, Ranchi Colony P.V.C. at P.O.-Naithandam, District-Dhanbad. At present R/o-C/o Sri S.P.Srivastava, Dwari Nath Lane, Salimpur Ahra, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Patel Marg, Patna through its Managing Director. 3. Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Division-2 Bahadurpur (Bhut Nath Ashram Kankarbagh Colony), Patna. 4. Additional Secretary –cum-Manager Estates, Government of Bihar. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate. For the Board : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT 22nd June 2011 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Dineshwar Nath Sahay, an allottee of a piece of land Plot No. 3H/31 admeasuring 1875 Sq. Ft. in Higher Income Group in Digha Housing Project of the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he had applied for the allotment of a plot of land as far back as in the year 1972. The above referred plot of land was allotted to the petitioner on 25th September 1991, but till the date of the petition, possession of the said land was not handed over to the petitioner in accordance with the agreement. The petitioner has therefore, prayed that the respondents be Patna High Court CWJC No.10471 of 2001 dt.22-06-2011 2 directed to hand over the vacant plot of land to the petitioner as agreed or he may be refunded the money paid by him with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with compensation as suggested by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We do appreciate the plight of the writ petitioner. However on the facts of the present case, we are unable to grant any relief to the writ petitioner. In support of the pleadings the petitioner has not produced any material. Neither the letter of allotment of land nor the agreement he seeks to enforce; nor the evidence of transfer of money. In absence of any material before us, there being no response either from the State Government or the Board, the mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued. In fact the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for recovery of possession of land or for recovery of money cannot lie. The only remedy available to the writ petitioner would be a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement or for recovery of money. For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of this petition. We may clarify that we have not examined the correctness of the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner may avail of the remedy legally available to him for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner may also choose to approach the Board for refund of the money paid by him with interest. If such application is made, the Board will consider and dispose of the same. Any order of the Board, if adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner will have liberty to challenge the same before appropriate Forum. Subject to the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Patna High Court Dated the 22nd June 2011 NAFR/Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma,J)