IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1625 of 2010 1. Bablu Kumar S/O Late Devendra Prasad R/O Moh- Dariarpur, P.S.- Kadamkuan, Distt.- Patna.,………….Appellant Versus 1. The Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna, Municipal Corporation, Patna 3. The Additional Municipal Commissioner, Patna, Municipalcorporation, Patna …………Respondents. ----------- 02/ 19th July 2011 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 23.08.2010 passed in CWJC No. 15281/2009 by which the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Appellant/petitioner was allowed 150 Sq. feet of land by the Patna Municipal Corporation situated in Ward No.43 with the following conditions. iVuk uxj fuxe Kki la0& 316 @jk0 dks0] iVuk] fnukad 11-12-2007 lsok esa] Jh ccyw dqekj] firk& Lo0 nsosUnz izlkn] eq0& nfj;kiqj] Fkkuk& dnedqvkWa] iVuk&4 okMZ la0&43 fLFkr fnudj pkSd ds nf{k.k&if'pe dkWuZj ij vofLFkr O;olk; gsrq vLFkk;h lajpuk ds fuekZ.k gsrq vLFkk;h :i ls 15X10 = 150 oxZQhV Hkw[k.M fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds lkFk vkidks vkoafVr fd;k tkrk gS%& 1- 5@& ¼ikWap½ :i;s izfr oxZQhV dh nj ls izfrekg ekfld fdjk;k nsuk gksxk A 2- rhu ekg ds fdjk;k ds lerqY; jkf'k vfxze ds :i esa tek djuk 2 gksxk A 3- 10]000@& ¼nl gtkj½ :i;s tekur dh jkf'k tek djuk gksxk A 4- vLFkk;h lajpuk dk fuekZ.k djuk gksxk A 5- iVuk uxj fuxe dks tc Hkh bldh fdlh ;kstuk ds fy, Hkw[kaM dh vko';drk gksxh] vkcaVh dks 15 fnuksa ds vanj lajpuk gVk ysuk gksxk] ftldk fdlh izdkj dk eqvkotk ns; ugha gksxk A 6- lQkbZ dh leqfpr O;oLFkk djuh gksxh A 7- vkcaVh dks 250@& ¼nks lkS ipkl½ :i;s izfro"kZ is'kkdj dk Hkqxrku djuk gksxk A 8- iVuk uxj fuxe }kjk tc Hkh fdjk;k esa o`f) fd;k tk;xk] og bl vkoaVu ij Hkh izHkkoh gksxk A 9- vkcaVh blesa 'kjkc ;k vU; eknd nzO; dk O;olk; ugha djuk gksxk 10- vkcaVu dh vcknh vxys vkns'k rd izHkkoh gksxk A 11- vkcaVh dks ,d fyf[kr ,djkjukek djuk gksxk A mi;qZDr 'krksZa ds lkFk fcgkj uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 104¼d½ ds vkyksd esa Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;k tkrk gS A uxj vk;qDr dk vkns'k fnukad 02-11-07 vij uxj vk;qDr] iVuk uxj fuxe” 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner has deposited Rs.10,000/- as security money but the learned counsel appearing for Corporation, Mr. Yashraj Vardhan submits that the petitioner/appellant did not deposit three months’ rent in advance and agreement has also not been executed. Since the appellant/petitioner has already deposited 3 security money, the Corporation ought to have required the appellant/petitioner to deposit the three months’ advance money and should have executed the agreement in terms of allotment letter. 4. It has been stated in the writ petition that the appellant/petitioner made several attempts but he could not succeed. However, there is no reference to the statement of fact that appellant/petitioner offered three months’ advance rent as per condition no.2. The Corporation also failed to show that the agreement was not executed for non compliance of condition no.2, therefore, appellant/petitioner is directed to deposit the three months’ advance rent to fulfill the requirement contained in condition no.2 within a period of one month, thereafter within two months the agreement as per condition no. 11 shall be executed by the Corporation. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. perwez (Prakash Chandra Verma,J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)