Chandrakala Devi vs The Begusarai Municipal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2030 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4449 of 2017
     ======================================================

Chandrakala Devi wife of Late Yogendra Sah, resident of Mohalla- Mungeriganj, Ward No.33, Hiralal Chowk, Begusarai, P.S.- Begusarai, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Begusarai Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner, Begusari, District Begusarai

2. The Municipal Commissioner, Begusarai Municipal Corporation, Begusarai, District- Begusarai.

3. Municipal Manager, Begusarai Municipal Corporation, Begusarai, District-

Begusarai.

4. Junior Engineer, Begusarai Municipal Corporation, Begusarai, District-

Begusarai.

5. Tax Collector, Begusarai Municipal Corporation, Begusarai, District-

Begusarai.

6. Smt. Khusbu Gupta, wife of Chandan Kumar Sahu, resident of Mohalla-

Mungeriganj, Ward No.33, Hiralal Chowk, Begusarai, P.S.- Begusarai, District- Begusarai.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ansul, Advocate
                                     Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
     For the State            :      Mr. Ravi Bhushan Verma, Advocate
                                     Mr. Dr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate
     For the Resp. No.6       :      Mr. Ravindra Kumar Rai, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-05-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

for the Municipal Corporation, Begusarai and learned counsel for the

private respondent no. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

husband of the petitioner, namely, Late Yogendra Sah got settled

Shop No. 52 in Goskhana under Begusarai Municipal Corporation,

Begusarai by the Executive-cum-Special Officer in the year 1998 in Patna High Court CWJC No.4449 of 2017 dt.01-05-2023

the name of his third son Chandan Kumar (husband of the respondent

no. 6), accordingly, an agreement dated 30.04.1998 was executed in

between Chandan Kumar and the Corporation. The shop was running

in the name of Kanhaiya Hotel by the family as a family business.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Yogendra Sah

died in 2014 thereafter the shop was being run by his five sons under

the guardianship of the petitioner and the entire family was being

maintained. It is next submitted that Chandan Kumar died on

22.10.2015 and after his death in order to avoid dispute in the family

between the brothers a fresh settlement was entered with the consent

of all the family members including the sons and respondent no. 6 in

the name of petitioner with regard to the shop in question,

accordingly, an agreement was entered in the name of the petitioner

on 21.01.2016 and the same was accepted by the Municipal

Commissioner, Begusarai (Annexure-1 series to the writ application).

It is also submitted that respondent no. 6 on 27.10.2016 made an

application to the Municipal Commissioner, Begusarai to settle the

Shop No. 52 in Goskhana in her name on compassionate ground,

accordingly, notices were issued. The petitioner appeared before the

Municipal Commissioner and stated all the relevant facts and

controverted the claim of the respondent no. 6. It is further submitted

that thereafter an inquiry was directed by the Corporation based on

which the Junior Engineer of the Corporation enquired and submitted Patna High Court CWJC No.4449 of 2017 dt.01-05-2023

his report dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure-2 to the writ application)

wherein it was specifically recorded that agreement of the shop was

in the name of Chandan Kumar but the shop was being run by

Yogendra Sah along with his sons and after death of Yogendra Sah

the shop was being run by his sons. It is next submitted that the

Municipal Corporation after receiving the report dated 09.02.2017

cancelled the agreement dated 21.01.2016 executed in favour of the

petitioner with regard to settlement of Shop No. 52 by order dated

27.02.2017 (Annexure-3 to the writ application) and directed to

execute the agreement of the shop in favour of the respondent no. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that the

present writ application seeks quashing of Memo No. 603 dated

27.02.2017 issued under the signature of the Municipal

Commissioner, Begusarai Municipal Corporation, Begusarai

whereby the agreement dated 21.01.2016 executed in favour of the

petitioner for settlement of Shop No. 52 in Goskhana has been

cancelled with a direction to execute agreement with regard to

settlement of Shop No. 52 in favour of the respondent no. 6 for the

financial year 2017-18.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in

dispute that the shop in question was settled in favour of the husband

of the respondent no. 6 but then it was at the instance of her husband.

It is further submitted that till her husband and the husband of Patna High Court CWJC No.4449 of 2017 dt.01-05-2023

respondent no. 6 were alive, the business was being run by the entire

family and it was only after the death of her husband and son i.e.

husband of respondent no. 6, that an agreement was entered amongst

the family members based on which the agreement of the shop was

executed by the Municipal Commissioner, Begusarai in favour of the

petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner and her

family member is also maintaining respondent no. 6 in lieu whereof

she is being given Rs.7,000/- per month for maintenance.

Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 6 submits

that the issue is not whether the petitioner and others are maintaining

her, the issue is whether the maintenance being given is sufficient or

not. It is further submitted that what is not in dispute rather stands

admitted is that the shop in question was settled in favour of her

husband, after his death, the respondent no. 6 was entitled for getting

the licence of the shop in question executed in her favour on

compassionate ground. Learned counsel also submits that though the

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agreement in

between the petitioner and the Municipal Commissioner, Begusarai

was entered in terms of an agreement reached in between the family

members of the petitioner including the respondent no. 6 but then the

respondent no. 6 is disputing any such agreement i.e. no agreement

was ever entered in between the petitioner and the family members

including the respondent no. 6.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4449 of 2017 dt.01-05-2023

Learned counsel for the Municipality also supports the

contention of the learned counsel appearing for the private

respondent no. 6.

Considering the submission made by the parties, the Court

is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 27.02.2017 issued by the

Municipal Commissioner, Begusarai Municipal Corporation,

Begusarai cancelling the agreement executed in favour of the

petitioner. Thus, the writ application is dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that now the petitioner will not be paying any amount towards

maintenance to the respondent no. 6 to which learned counsel for the

private respondent agrees.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          02.05.2023
Transmission Date