Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
·.83 ~ 84 ~ 3A'Tl'o :i,c,,(-;ir:'; ("$;-ij-;;1} 'WJI~ ~ m· m;rq mit, ?.-:i!'«-l/;7-~ '!JIV~ stffi mfr~ 3~ -qa:rf~Rl ~ ~- ci~ ~~ffi ~4 tiicc\'1,:.;·7 ~'~~~~~I ( s ) ··T~ <"'\\; WI ~ &$ ti~ i'R.li ~' ~,ITT' ~.· ~~ ~f.ii.ra' ~ -i,y " ' .... ~ ..... ~ ~---..:., - ......,,;i,..:,,.~ ~ .?=f1c;~t '1ijj G-1 res 11:°t"<. ~l ~l,;,m <>11""1 o;;;f ~I~ 3--:crffi" "1{:\I <;~~I ( .,~ ) ( ~) ~ ~~ <Itrr:,mi_:r ~ WN~1,n 1r.u ~ o!l~ ~ ~o.~t·fl' ~.cdt;,; ..,.;'( ~Tf'~ ~ ~';f 7;J ~: ~·-~ffi-i' ~· 3'~ ~ ~ f, ~ -a;f<,m :YR\<:;11~ ..,~· ~11'1,-r m 9.:r,;J<'j' ii *'.ff~ w. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1' ~ ~ ~ o!ir4 i.J( ~ JJI·, --- ( Secs 82 B!:> Bihm Flegionnl Development Authority Act, 1974 Cl-le,,PTEA m JAMAGE.S, LEGAL PROCEEDINGS' AND TRIBUNAL [Ls2 o'i lanci-Wt'ere the land in question has been xept resorvsd loi· "Public or semi-public· purpose" under a comprehensive Development Plan by the Municipal Corporation the proposal to lease it for commercial purposes and benefit of a Registered Society cannot be said to be proper. The grnrr; of lease to a private organisation wilt be bad in law. II. Kashinath vs. State of Kemeteke. ·199,i:; (2) All PLR (SC) 332 .. Whore the Development Authority had neither refused to grant permis- sion for sale to the Atlottoe nor taken any stops for exercisinq its option to resume the housing unit in terms of Rule 20 of PROA (Disposal of land) Rules, ·1978 tot over three years after filing of application for sale and issu- ing a "No dues certificate" to the owner, it will amount to an implied waiver of the right for the exercise of option to resume the property. The sale of t11e housing· unit cannot be said to be in breach of lease o; any statutory provision. The buyer from the lessee cannot be said to be a trespasser or liable to be evicted. However, the transferee is not entitled to make an11 un- authorised construction. Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. PROI,, ·1995 (1) A.!I PLR 338 : 1995 (2) PLJR 1.J ss-as, ~~v", ~J°\Qft"wrr· ~i~ WR~ ~itm· ~ ~~ ~- ~ ~ 3,frir ~~r ~ -m:.'i "@im ~ ~ <lS1T ~,.,_ o;;;r-~ '!:fr ~fuF? ftr::rr P,i~!J.l -qr mf~ ryft ~ -fu;;m ~Q~Hl <>fil ~·· ~.:t'IR-1 '?f clfura ~Thi ~ ~ -mf~cnh ~-;f -q· ~ "'{4~0:l, ~·Jffl'..f,.;m;fq~ ~ ar...u, ~, e:ku Vi ~-~;_-7T'li ~, m-ilF-i~ ~. ~ -~ ~ Wi'i. ·vi"{ w-~ ~. w~~1, ~. cfi"ffi, ~, -..rc;~, ~, <-~, ~, K~, ~ mt w 3,..,, .~ ~~ ~ T~ afh ~liZl"&f ~ fuim ~R ~~ ?,ii' ""~<>m -;;rt ~ a-;f~~ ~ ,3:r.::cj ·~i"f'.-1 i:fil~.,:·, ~ ~ <fi ~r-r es.- ~ ~ '%', fu~ ~ ~-rr -~ feh.fll ~ ~ foJ~i_"f•>i· 3-llz mm3ir m ~! ciiT ~ ~ ~ * fcnm ~r{"',~ q~ ftreiif~'; ii -3fll"a_:rr m ~ f.m o."[ "3lf ~w ir ~ 1"Erf.r~ a..~ cYi ~"ITTR" ~- ~ 1;!l -~r -..ir ~ ~ ~ ~ 1!fi.rn a{fu~ -~ "3« ~~ 7ilil' a:.':,,..,.,{"'"'"l ~' Cornml'.mts and case-law Soc. 85 ~] Bihar Regional Development Authority Act 1974 r 53 {~) ~"f if ~'I" <.tt <SR~; i¥ ~ qR,iJ., ~ '1Q5H ~ lfmrr rc"{rm ~ ~ ·f.:t~ :arn~. 1956 ~ v~.:rr ~.:rr 7iire, <11> m~ cm vl1it-i "« ~ -l1f'11s@IUT q;)- ~ m r.&i14<iu_;1 ii~~ i1'!-P' ~ r;.RT mf~ ~ ~ll<,f;f'U -~i m~ vJi·l 3ffirn>•i'1f 3iF~ r.r ~- f.n.Tfm ~ <fil ~JT ~~I Wf~ ~ ~ ~{-~ffi c'i1q; 'X!.ftr "ff4$·11· ~ 3-,,"{ 3-lfcls>hiM ~ ~ -:m -~IT 'i;t 'funm° ~ "10 ~·>llU"f a.Tfm-f~-lf'l q' -qft~~ ·t I ( <:!) mi'F~ ~ ~m ~ il1I" ~ WU ·A"f.:ra -~ 1im- "ITT <JI' urr ~ ['i. ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ rcim ~.""(, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ alilrf.r,.v-f, 19::6 ~ ~ ~ l:fftm .:tR "11ll•II ( ~-) frj6 •• l>j«-'{ ol?J"iT ~~li:};401 ~ c;;,9· ~crrn ii' e;flf ·~ ~~ ~~ fui:-tfo&l; if ~&!BJ nl!tT ;rrf~rr ~ "Y-1f~ 3R ~fl1e11i.ff ~( .:~::.i1<:.iic--r•1 ~~~), Comments ~tll1- case-law [Vice-Chelrman of Development Autt_io,itv has power to get the encroach mont removed even withou! any prior notice and perrnit the taking of help of pohco for tne. purpose. Whore eviction notice was issued following passing of 01dsr of svlcnon, 11 cannot be contended ihat the notice must also furnish all G01c1it, of encroachment and defaults made by the .:.llegcd Encroacher The High Court also rejected the contention that · the act.on or Development Au- ,nority in itaving ihe writ petitioners forcibly evicted amounted to an infrac- tion, of their right to livelihood quarantced under Article 21 of the Constitu- '.ion. :.-ri.shna :-;umar Sinha 11s. State of Biber, i998{;~) PLJR 481 1 ::::c. ,·;o:.ut-lioo f'.laim[,!e over certain sults.s--Nolwithstandinq anything to tile contrary contained in the Court-Fees Act, 1870 (VII of '1870), in its appli- cation to the State of Bihar tho fee payable by ihe Authority in respect to the following suits and appeals arislng therefrom shell! b= :ittP.cn rupees irre- spective of 1he value o'' the suit and ihe claim- (a) for declaration of title; (b) ior ceclaration ni title and recovery of possession o1 movable or immovable property: (c) for mcovory of rents, protits, damages, compensation charges and otner sums; (d} for sviction and recovery o1 immovable prope-ty and damages, compensation ano mesne orofits or rents, past and Iuturo: (o} · for injunction Comments 2:. case-law [0uly irnpo:-iod by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as rnodif:ed "rorn ·nmo to lim0 in Its appuceuon to the State of 9ihar} not being payable in case of l~oc·.1ments executed by registered co-operative societies, .the question ot . increase in stamp duty in accordance with Section 3S on value; of property does not arise. Pettiputra Co-operetive House Construction Society Ltd vs. 8;';;:,~s. 1977 3GCJ 75.J ~"i. fit, sMifcs for inj1..m,ction b~1 ll!lnAftho,iil,' comi: eiu,11, pasi. i&11erim· or- r!lc.:r .,r k1jr.111,c·U :i,'l and issue ·show caius~.-- Wl~enevei" any suit tor, injunc- tion to restrain any person from doing an act on lt.nd or building oi the Au- ~horHy ~'Jhich h::> is not entitled or permitted to do is instituted, the Court shell on application by the Authority, pass ad interim orcer of injunction rastraininq the person 1rom doin~ that act and sh::il! issue a notice calling upon him to show cause why it shall not be made absolute till the disposer or the suit an::; a·;ier heari:1g the parties pass such order as i1 thinks ti.. and all provi- ~}ons ot Order 39 of the 'Civil Procedure Code, 1908 shat' apply ~o the order. ~iJ,. P..iwc, ov Vficia-Ctmii'main tro 'i:he institution, ccrnpcslticn e11;. o( rs- ::.:~.:ii 1.·,r,uc:..,,~r.Hn~Js ar11c1 orotaining leg~! adh,ice.-Tho Vice-Chairman may, on b€h:llf of :he At!!!'iority anc subject to control by L- (e) insiitute, derend or withcraw from leQal procaedinqs undo, this Act or any rule or regulatior made thernunder; (b) compound any offence under this Ac! 01· under, any other law for the '.ime being in force which may '.:>r: lawfully compounded by the Authority: (c) acrnit. compromise or withdraw any .:..leim rr-ade by or against /'I •. .1,:_,.. •••• , •• ..,t'\,..: r Secs 86-88 8ih2r Regional Development Au~r.or:t}' Act, 19/4 E4J Comments & case- law . [Even administrative actions are_ not out of the scope of prlnciples of natural [ustica- x' '. Sephard vs. Union of India, 1988 (i) SU ·105. Admission made in pleading cannot be dissected. Unlike the ioslirr?ony of a witness, it may be accepted as a whole or not at all. Govemini; Oody vs. Padmanabha fJadhy, 1988 (2) SLJ ·j 80. The strict standards applied io authorities exercisinq judicial power ::110 being increasingly applied to administrative bodice for it i:c; vital to i\-a mair-tenance or 'ho rule of law in a welfare State. The jurisdlctton 01 necessary. obtain such legal advice and assistance as he ma~ 01 nno ,,:. time thin!< necessary or expedlent to obtain or as h bP o .. !- sired by the Autrority to obtain for any of tne . purposes retBrrcd to in !he foregoing clauses of ihis section or for securing 'Ii lawful exercise or. discharge of any power cluiy vested in or nn posed upon the Authority or any officer or employee .Jf ~h· • a thority. . as. Cornstitution at Tribunal oi P,pp:e;al.-{:i) The lribunal of Appea, .:'i-::f consist ct President and lwo members. (2) The P.resident shall bs appointed b~, tho State GovernmEmi fro,,) ,'1~: cadre of District Judges of the Staie Superior Judicial Servica. (3) The State Government shall appoint two more persons as ra;em::i(,::. of the Tribunal one of whom may be a Civil Engineer :101 be!ow the rank of Suoerintending Enginee:· and the other may bo a ·c11an0red ·-1aluer or 2. C:,1H Engineer w'tn knowledqe and experience of-town planning and valuanor or properties. (4) ~he President and the members or the Trib:.;r:<11 shall 11old offic.;) C.:u·- ing the oleasurs or the State Government. _ (5) All decisions oI the Tribunal in exorcise 61 i ::; appellate 2 rihoritv shall be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any cour. or tS;i,1.r whether in a suit or other proceeding by way of appeal or revision. CommeJ'li:s & case-law [Apt:,ellaite Tribuinail.-The 'provisions of section 89 make ii clear iiFi. i--:0 Appellate Trtbuna! constituted under thi.s Act has to mandatorlly consisr of three persons, Ai1y decision by an Appellaie Tribunal nu'. constituted in 1mms of section 89 is liable to be set aside by the High Court and mmiited bac:, tor re-dlsnosal by the Appeilate Tribunal in accordance with iaw. Beieshv-e: Paswan vs. State or Bihar. i 994 (2) PLJR 353.J