IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4171 of 2002 1. SMT. SITA DEVI , wife of Sri Saryug Prasad Singh. 2. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Ramnandan Singh. 3. Nageshwar Poddar, son of late Hriday Poddar. 4. Chandan Kumar, son of Sri Dinesh Thakur. 5. Purnadeo Rai, son of Sri Sudama Rai 6. Smt. Shashi Sahay, wife of Sri M.P. Sinha. 7. Smt. Neelam Sinha ,wife of Sri Veemal Kumar Sinha 8. Rakesh Kumar, son of Sri Rabindra Prasad. 9. Smt. Sheela Tripathi, wife of Sri Chitranjan Tripathi, All resident of Mohalla Aam Bagicha, P.S. Gardanibagh, Town and District- Patna. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Bihar, Patna. 2. Patna Regional Development Authority through its Chairman, Patna. 3. Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority, Patna. 4. Director, Patna Regional Development Authority, Patna. 5. Assistant Engineer (Incharge Encroachment Removal), Patna Regional Development Authority, Patna. 6. District Magistrate, Patna. 7. Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna through its town Commissioner .......Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar No.1, Advocate For the Patna Municipal Corporation (Respondent nos. 2 to 5 and 7) : Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate. 14 07.2.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notices issued on 29.6.2001 and 25.8.2001 (Annexure-2 series) by the then Director of Patna Regional Development Authority, constituted under the provisions of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981, which has now been repealed by the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and assets and liabilities of the previous organization have been vested in the Patna Municipal Corporation by virtue of Section 488 of the 2 aforesaid Act 2007. By the aforesaid notices, the petitioners have been directed to produce their sanction Map for construction of their residential houses over plot no. 1844 of Mauza Dhakanpura, Mohalla Gardanibagh in the town of Patna, otherwise steps shall be taken for demolition of unauthorized constructions made by them. 3. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners have purchased aforesaid plot no. 1844 for construction of their residential houses and it was divided in sub-plots making allotment in favour of different petitioners and entire plot of land is bounded by a boundary wall. In his submission, this being a private land purchased by the petitioners, neither the P.R.D.A.at the relevant time, nor the Patna Municipal Corporation for the present time are/were vested with any power for demolition of any part of construction made by them. He also submits that as per averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Patna Municipal Corporation, recently a spot verification was allegedly made on 14.01.2011 by some of the officials of the Patna Municipal Corporation , but neither any notice was given to the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them, and the entire action is sought to be carried out unilaterally behind the back of the petitioners for demolition of certain part of the boundary wall erected by the petitioners. In the same vein, it is urged that some other persons have purchased some other private land, but they cannot have access through the lands purchased by the petitioners and through the private road left by them for the use of the different allottees of the plot in question. 3 4. Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation, has placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Patna Municipal Corporation and submits that the petitioners are not cooperating with the authorities for coming to just conclusion and instead they are trying to obstruct the means of access. He has placed reliance on the provisions of Clause 18.6(a) of the Patna Planning Standards and Building Bye-laws, 1981, commonly known as modified Building Bye-Laws of P.R.D.A., which is relevant for the purpose of present case and is being reproduced herein below: “[18.6. (a) Means of access.- The minimum width of the road/street required for the access to the building in an existing colony not developed by any authorized Agency such as P.R.D.A, Housing Board. Co-operative Societies, Government and Semi – Government Organisation will be as follows: Sl. No. Maximum length of the Minimum width of road in metre road of street in metre 1. 2. 3. 1. Upto 25 metre 3.6 metre or 12 feet 2. Exceeding 25 meter 4.8 metre or 16 feet and upto 100 metre 3. Exceeding 100 metre 6 metre or 20 feet. 5. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that it is true that lands over which the petitioners have constructed their residential houses have not been developed by any authorized agency, such as P.R.D.A., Housing Board or any such authorities, but, in that case also, a prescribed minimum width of the road has to be there and 4 if the width of the road is less than the prescribed limit, then actions are required to be taken by the authorities for demolition of certain part of the fencing area or the boundary wall erected by the petitioners, as the case may be. 6. After having heard the parties and after considering the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation and its officials are required to pass a fresh order in the light of the provisions referred to above as also in the light of the existing provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007. It further appears that in response to the notices, as per annexure-2 series, the petitioners had submitted their show cause as contained in Annexures-3 and 4 of the writ petitions. According to the petitioners, no final order was passed on the basis of show cause filed by them, though according to the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation some decision was taken as far back as in the year 2001 itself. However, this Court does not find that the order passed in the year 2001 was ever communicated to the petitioners and any consequential action was taken thereafter. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this matter is remitted to respondent Patna Municipal Corporation with a direction to pass a fresh order regarding the claims raised on behalf of the petitioners with respect to the land of plot no. 1844. The petitioners herein are directed to appear before Municipal Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation within a period of one month from today with a representation regarding their claims with respect to the lands in question and with a copy of certified copy of the present order. If 5 such a representation is filed on behalf of the petitioners, then the Municipal Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation either himself or some other competent authority will take a final decision in the matter, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation . Till the matter is finally disposed of by respondent Patna Municipal Corporation, the status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties with respect to the plot in question. 8. This is also made clear that if the petitioners do not appear before the Municipal Commissioner within the time prescribed by this Court with a copy of this order, then it would be construed that the present writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners stood rejected by this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction the present writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )