IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2078 of 2001 MALTI SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 20.1.2009 Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the intervener respondent and the counsel for the P.R.D.A. The petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 3.1.2001 passed by the Director of the P.R.D.A. directing her to remove certain encroachment on the public road and/or the bricks kept by her giving a shape of the wall has been sought to be assailed by the petitioner on the ground that earlier this dispute was gone into by the Vice Chairman of the P.R.D.A. and the Vice Chairman of the P.R.D.A. after getting the measurement made had approved the same which would be indicative of the fact that the petitioner was not an erring person so as to swim with the consequence of removal of certain encroachment. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener respondent, however, would submit 2 that the stage in which the matter was left by Annexure 3, when the measurement was obtained by the Vice Chairman of the P.R.D.A. and approved, had not remained the same because the petitioner subsequently having given 10’ of land from her side had got encroached 5’ thereof. He would further clarify that it was this aspect of the matter when detected by the Director that he had to pass the impugned order, contained in Annexure 1, dated 3.1.2001. Normally it is not possible for this Court to decide such disputed question of fact especially when Annexure 1 does not spell out the reasons as is now being sought to be canvassed by both the parties. There is no dispute that earlier the attention of the Vice Chairman towards this road and the encroachment thereof was brought to the notice of the authorities of the P.R.D.A. and in view of some measurement made the issue was also sought to be resolved by directing the petitioner to give 10’ from her side and the remaining 10’ from the other side, sought to be now presented by the intervener respondent. Whether such 3 order was given effect to in reality or whether the petitioner having initially given 10’ of land from her side be taken away 5’ thereof is essentially a question of fact and can be gone into by the authorities of Patna Municipal Corporation successor of the P.R.D.A. This Court, therefore, would remit the matter back to the Town Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation who will hear the petitioner or her counsel as also the private intervener and/or his counsel and decide the whole thing within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if it is found that the encroachment made by the petitioner/ intervener respondent had taken place after the earlier measurement, they will be given 15 days time to remove it, failing which the authorities of Patna Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to get it demolished in accordance with law. In order to expedite the matter the parties i.e. the petitioner and the private intervener respondent are directed to appear 4 before the Commissioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that till such a final decision is taken by the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Annexure 1 shall not be given effect to. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/