IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.839 of 2009 Surendra Kumar Sinha son of Late K.N. Prasad @ Krishna Nand Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Chakaram, P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna. ……….Son (legal heir) of writ petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The Patna Regional Development Authority (Dissolved), Now Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok Colex, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna through its Chairman, Now Municipal Commissioner. 2. The Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority (Dissolved), Now Municipal Commissioner Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok Complex, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna. 3. The Director, Urban Planning, Patna Regional Development Authority (Dissolved), Now Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok complex, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna. ………………Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Naresh Kumar Malhotra, Sr. Advocate & Mr Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the P.R.D.A/ P.M.C.: Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate. ………….. 12 20.07.2011 In this appeal the appellant Surendra Kumar Sinha who claims to be son of Late K.N. Prasad @ Krishna Nand Prasad (Writ petitioner) was permitted, vide order dated 16.7.2009 passed in I.A. No.4064 of 2009, to maintain this L.P.A. as heir of the deceased writ petitioner. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 2.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.13488 of 2001, wherein the father of the appellant had chosen to question the order dated 13.3.2000 passed by the Vice Chairman, P.R.D.A. directing demolition of a portion of Chhaja of the building of the petitioner/ appellant as also depositing the condonation fee as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal in the order dated 6.7.2001 on the ground that the finding recorded by the authorities to the effect that Clause 20.1.4 of the Building Bye- laws framed by the P.R.D.A. was not applicable. 2 However, during course of argument before the learned Single Judge the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been some development during pendency of the writ petition and a decision has been taken for taking a fresh measurement. But however, counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has no instruction on this issue. The learned Single Judge after having heard the parties has observed that if the authorities have taken any such decision based on their own consideration for taking re- measurement, this order will not come in the way of the authorities to take such an action, but this order will not be used as a plank for reopening the issue which according to this Court stands concluded. In view of above observation of the learned Single Judge, we are also of the view that if the authorities have taken any such decision for taking re-measurement, the authority can proceed as such and the order of this Court will not stand in the way of the authorities in taking such an action on the fresh decision in accordance with bye- laws. We also made it clear that if the petitioner/ appellant is aggrieved by any order passed by the authority he is at liberty to agitate his right in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. 3 With the above modification in the order of the learned Single Judge, this L.P.A. is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)