IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15783 of 2009 AMIT KUMAR PRASAD, S/O LATE BRIJ KISHOR PRASAD R/O BAKARGANJ, BEHIND UDYOG BHAWAN, P.O.BANKIPUR, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BIADA), BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA. -RESPONDENTS. ______ For the Petitioner : Mr. Indu Bhushan For Patna Municipal: Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Corporation Kr. Singh For BIADA : Mr. Lalit Kishore 4 05.01.2010 The petitioner, as probono publico, has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to restrain the Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (in short “BIADA”) not to utilize the land situate on plots no.1140 and 1141. It is urged in the petition that the respondent no.4, the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, has, without any authority, allotted the plots in favour of the BIADA and, more so, when a road is situate on plot no.1141 which is used by the public. 2 Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the BIADA, submitted that as far as plot no.1141 is concerned, no construction shall be raised on the same and it will be available for public for the purpose of use as road. As far as plot no.1140 is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, and Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Commissioner, that a Nala is situate on that plot and the public has no right on the Nala. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Nala is being used by the public as a road. While exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to delve into the same whether the Nala is covered and used by the public as basically an easementary right is claimed. Accordingly, it is directed that no construction will be made on plot no.1141 and it shall be utilized by the public at large for the purpose of road. As far as plot no.1140 is concerned, we express no opinion and grant liberty to petitioner and his likes to agitate the grievance before the appropriate forum as per law. 3 With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad