IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.843 of 2010 In (CIVIL REVIEW 351/2009) 1. The Patna Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner- Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Budh Marg, Patna, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Patna. ....Appellant Versus 1. Binod Das @ Binod Mishra, S/O and Chela Of Late Mahanth Raghunath Das, R/O 104 Anand Palace, Patliputra Colony, P.S.- Patliputra, District-Patna. 2. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Principal Office, In Front Of G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Patna. 6. The Executive Officer, Kankarbagh Anchal, Patna Municipal Corporation, Near Tempo-Stand, P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna. 7. The Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad, through Its Managing Director, West Boring Canal Road, Patna. 8. The Chief Engineer, Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad, West Boring Canal Road, Patna. ....Respondents ---------------------------------- For the appellant: Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. advocate Mr. Arun Kumar, advocate Mr. Vikas Ratan Bharti, advocate For the respondent no.1: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, advocate ------------------------ 5 07-12-2011 Heard the parties. By the impugned order under appeal Civil Review no. 351 of 2009 preferred by the appellant Patna Municipal Corporation has been dismissed after observing that the judgement and order in CWJC no. 6465 of 2007 was passed on 20-08-2007 after granting opportunity to contest the claim but the Corporation 2 did not file any counter affidavit and did not disclose any defence that the land in question stood acquired before filing of Title Suit no. 395/87 and the writ case. Thus, order of the writ court dated 20-08-2007 contained in annexure-1 has acquired finality so far as the writ court is concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold defence. On merits he has drawn our attention to annexure-2 which contains a notification dated 27-3-1957 u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The southern boundary of the acquired land shows that only part of survey plot nos. 142 and 242 of village Hanuman Nagar No.8 were in the boundary. By implication it has been submitted that part of those plots towards north stand acquired. Another notification dated 14-11-1973 published in the Bihar Gazette on 27th November, 1973 shows that some further acquisition was initiated because that notification is u/s 4 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and it relates to several plots including plot no. 242 part. On the basis of such materials it has been submitted 3 that the matter requires reconsideration on merits, however, it was further submitted that the office of Patna Municipal Corporation is not having all the relevant records relating to the Title Suit which the writ petitioners claim to have won against the State and also of the land acquisition proceedings relating to lands in question. According to learned counsel records are lying with the Stage agencies and the Bihar State Housing Board and the latter ought to have been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. The second ground raising objection as to non impleadment of necessary party, the Bihar State Housing Board in our view appears to be justified. This court is not required to go into the merits of the claim in view of proposed order. In our considered view, the Bihar State Housing Board needs to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition. That should be done within the time permitted by the writ court after this order reaches the writ court. The order under appeal as well as the order contained in annexure-1 dated 20.8.07 4 are set aside and recalled. The matter is remitted to the writ court for giving opportunity to the writ petitioners to implead the Bihar State Housing Board and serve notice on the concerned parties, who have not been noticed till date thereafter the matter should be considered on merits. The Patna Municipal Corporation and the State of Bihar should be given another chance to file counter affidavit in the writ proceeding and to raise all objections available to them under law. The writ petition shall be decided on merits without being prejudiced by this order. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)