IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.622 of 2010 DRIKUNG CHARITABLE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, TRUE LHAMO D/O LAMA KALSANG RESIDING AT NORTH OF KALACHAKRA GROUND, P.S.- BODH GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA … Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA COLLECTORATE, GAYA 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, GAYA 4. THE NAGAR PANCHAYAT, BODH-GAYA THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BODH-GAYA, GAYA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BODH-GAYA, GAYA 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BODH-GAYA, GAYA 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GAYA 8. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BODH- GAYA, GAYA 9. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BODH-GAYA, GAYA 10. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA … Respondents-Respondents with LPA No.340 of 2010 NAGAR PANCHAYAT, BODH GAYA THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BODH GAYA, GAYA … Respondent no.4-Appellant Versus 1. DRIKUNG CHAIRITABLE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY TRUE LHAMO D/O LAMA KALSANG RESIDENT AT- NORTH OF KALACHAKRA GROUND, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA COLLECTORATE, GAYA 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, GAYA 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BODH GAYA, GAYA 6. CIRCLE OFFICER, BODH GAYA, GAYA 7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GAYA 2 8. SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BODH GAYA, GAYA 9. OFFICER IN CHARGE, BODH GAYA, GAYA … Respondents-Performa Respondents ----------- 3. 27.4.2010 The present appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 12831/2008 and C.W.J.C.No. 17775/2008. Be it noted, both the writ petitions were preferred by the petitioner Drikung Charitable Society. The learned Single Judge dealt with the factual cineraria and allowed C.W.J.C.No. 12831/2008 and did not decide the other writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has already been granted the relief. Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for Nagar Panchayat, Bodh Gaya in L.P.A.No. 340/2010 submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously come to hold that the petitioner’s plan was not in contravention of the Draft Master Plan, inasmuch as section 23 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974 restricts any kind of change or use of land after the Draft Master Plan is published. It is contended by him that the Draft Master Plan is required to be published under section 22 of the Act. It is urged by 3 him though no Rules have been framed but the Draft Master Plan has been published in the official gazette on 31.8.2005. He has also referred to the documents, contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition, to bolster the said stand. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, learned Senior counsel, resisting the aforesaid submission contended that the notification in the gazette is not a Draft Plan and in fact it has contour and characteristic of a draft plan and therefore, section 23 would not get attracted. That apart it is contended by him that the preparation of draft plan as postitulated in the Scheme of the Act had not been adhered to and therefore, the draft plan as has been contended by Nagar Panchayat has no sanctity in the eye of law. It is also contended by him that once the plan with regard to construction was sanctioned under section 23 of the Act that Draft Master Plan has not come into existence in the eye of law. Mr. Singh has also drawn our attention to section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. We must say that all humanity at our command when the validity of the master plan was 4 assailed by the writ petitioner, the same should have been gone into. What is vehemently contended and urged by Mr. Singh that there has been procedural irregularity which makes the so called draft plan totally ultra vires and, therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant Nagar Panchayat has no legs to stand upon. If the writ petitions are filed on different grounds and both were inter-connected it would have been apposite on the part of the learned Single judge to advert to the contentions raised in the writ petitions and decide the same in a composite manner, especially when the issue of bringing of master plan was subject matter in C.W.J.C.No. 17775/2008. In view of aforesaid, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and request him to decide both the writ petitions on merits. As there has been considerable delay we would request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petitions by the end of 15th July, 2010. We may repeat at the cost of repetition that we have made such request as Mr. Singh submitted that the lot of material has been gathered at the spot to carry 5 on the construction but because of the prevalent situation he is not in a position to construct. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prices get hiked by efflux of time and, therefore, it needs disposal. Hence, the request. Both the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, till the writ petitions are finally disposed of, status quo as existing today shall be maintained. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/