IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8528 of 1997 1.Hari Shankar Shukla, son of late Sri Hazari Lal Shukla, resident of Kaviraj Path, Mohalla Pirmohani, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. Kadam Kuan, District- Patna. 2. Krishna Shankar Shukla, son of late Sri Hazari Lal Shukla, resident of Ram Krishna Path, P.S. & P.O. Kadam Kuan, District- Patna, at present serving as an Officer in the Directorate of Geology and Mining Lucknow, U.P. ------ Petitioners. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. Patna Regional Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Patna. 3. The Patna Municipal Corporation through its Administrator, Patna ---- Respondents. ----------- 12. 19.7.2011 Heard Mr. Yogendra Mishra for the petitioners, and Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.15 for respondent no.1, and Mr. Madhuresh Prasad for respondent nos. 2 and 3. The present writ petition has been preferred by the two petitioners for the following reliefs: “That this writ petition is being filed for issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the buildings or any part of the buildings of the petitioners on the basis of red mark put on two sides on each of the two buildings without following the procedure of law and also for a direction to follow the procedure of law laid down for the same.” Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have placed on record 2 their joint counter affidavit. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the two petitioners are full brothers, and have purchased plots of land by deeds of absolute sale in Kaviraj Path, in the township of Patna. They constructed houses after obtaining sanction of construction plans. In order to widen the lane (Kaviraj Path), respondent nos. 2 and 3, undertook a survey of the lane and found on provisional basis that the same have/had been encroached by owners of plots of lands, and have also deviated from the sanction plans. In pursuance of this order, they unilaterally put up red marks showing encroachment of public land which forms Kaviraj Path. Furthermore, the counter affidavits also allege violation of the construction plans and bye-laws which were in force at the time the same were sanctioned. 3. It appears to us that, in the circumstances of the case, let respondent nos. 2 and 3 serve separate show-cause notices on the petitioners stating therein the encroachment of Kaviraj Path at their instance, as well as the alleged violations of the sanctioned plans and the bye-laws which 3 were in force at the time the same were sanctioned, giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to show-cause to the same. The same may be followed by a joint local inspection in presence of the petitioners or their representatives, as well as the functionaries of respondent nos. 2 and 3, on a date to be fixed by the Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation. This will be followed by the final order. 3. We must note next objection raised by petitioner no. I to the effect that his plan for construction had been sanctioned by Patna Improvement Trust, and notices are being issued by respondent nos. 2 and 3. We reject the contention for the reason that the Patna Regional Development Authority is the successor body of the Patna Improvement Trust. Furthermore, respondent nos.2 has of late been merged into respondent no.3, as a result of which both of them form a single body, and in law will be deemed to be the successor body of the erstwhile Patna Improvement Trust. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also raises a similar objection on behalf of petitioner no.2 that the map had been sanctioned by Patna City Municipality, whereas 4 respondent nos. 2 and 3 which are different and distinct bodies are taking action. The contention over-looks the historical position that the duties and functions of the Patna City Municipality with respect to sanction of plans for construction were in due course transferred to respondent no.2 which, in its turn, and as stated hereinabove, has merged into respondent no.3. The contention is rejected. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J.)