Dipanshu Promoter And Builders Private Limited vs State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

I Official Respondent 2nd Set namely Respondent No.7 to 9 may be directed to handover the site for construction of Blocks and all other developments over land as contemplated till the agreement read with Detailed Bidding Report (Hereinafter referred to as D.R. R.) given to the Petitioner with the work order.

II. On consideration of the facts under-mentioned a writ/order/direction may kindly be issued against the official respondent nos. I to 6 to afford protection in construction of the combined examination building of Bihar School Examination Board, being constructed over the lands detailed in paragraph-4 of this petition.

III. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash that part of the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Patna City, Patna in Title Suit No.67 of 1995, whereby he has directed under a misconceived notion directing the District Magistrate, Patna and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna to stop the construction work going on over Plot No.2215, namely. the disputed plot in the suit in the alleged compliance of order of status quo in Title Suit No.67 of 1995.

IV. For grant of such other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to.

In our considered view, the present petition is wholly misconceived.

Petitioner claims his rights through an agreement entered into with the State/its instrumentality for construction of School over the land which undisputedly is subject matter of title suit pending adjudication since the year 1995. The same is inter se parties and associated with the agreement in question, in any manner.

Whether State is a party to the said proceedings or not would be immaterial, for we find the petitioner’s prayer of quashing the order of status quo dated 9th of April, 2021 passed in the said title suit (No. 97 of 1995) to be totally misconceived in law. No such order can be quashed as is so prayed in the proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for it is not alleged before us that the said order is obtained by fraud.

In fact, we find that yet another party had approached this Court by way of C.W.J.C. No. 5473 of 2021 titled as Daso Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Page-100), and this Court had directed expeditious disposal of the said title suit.

In our considered view, if the respondent State has failed to hand over the site to the petitioner, the remedy with the petitioner would lie under the agreement containing the arbitration clause; statutory or common law. Petitioner failced to place such agreement on record. Perhaps, an arbitration clause may be contained therein. If so, it is always open for the petitioner to invoke the same. Any which way, petitioner is not remediless and can file a suit claiming damages/ compensation before a Court having competent jurisdiction or approach the Works Tribunal, but in our considered view, the present writ petition in its form seeking quashing of the interim order passed by the Court having competent jurisdiction in a title suit and direction to the State to hand over the possession of the land subject matter of the said title suit, is totally misconceived in law.

Hence the present petition devoid of merit is dismissed.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.