IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10294 of 2002 BATESHWAR NATH VERMA Son of Late Nagina Prasad Verma resident of 8, Vivekanand Park, P.S. Patliputra, district Patna. Versus 1.THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Maurya Lok Complex through the Vice Chairman. 2.The Vice Chairman, The Patna Regional Development Authority, Mauryalok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road Patna. ----------- 6 30/4/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the P.R.D.A. Relevant portion of prayer of the petitioner in paragraph no.1 reads as follows:- (i)For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take the land of the petitioner for road widening by forcible demolition; (ii)For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to repair/re-erect the boundary wall of the petitioner and pay compensation to the petitioner for illegal demolition of the boundary wall of the petitioner without any notice or proper opportunity of hearing. By an amendment petition I.A. No. 5927 of 2006, the petitioner has also prayed for of quashing the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the respondent Vice-Chairman of the P.R.D.A. in Vigilance Case No. 154A of 2002. For the reasons mentioned in the I.A. application as also taking into account the subsequent events after filing of the writ application this Court would allow such amendment in the prayer portion of the petition by incorporating the following prayer as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the said application to be part of paragraph 1 of the writ application which reads as 2 follows:- “For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by respondent no.2 in Vigilance Case No. 154A of 2002.” It has to be noted here that earlier also this aspect of the matter was considered by a detailed interim order dated 11.9.2002 which is quoted hereinbelow:- “The petitioner makes a grievance that the officials of the Patna Regional Development Authority have forcibly demolished a portion of his boundary wall and are bent upon demolishing the remaining portions of the wall on the pretext of widening the lane on which the house is situate. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the house of the petitioner is situate on a lane which is three meters in width and the same width of the land is shown in the plan for the construction of the house, duly sanctioned by the Authority itself. It is further pointed out that earlier a proceeding bearing Yachika No. 9915 of 1995 was initiated against the petitioner for widening of the lane. It was, however, dropped by order, dated 8.12.1995 passed by the Vice-Chairman when it came to light that in the sanctioned plan itself, the width of the lane was shown as three meters. Later on, another proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a newspaper notice which was registered as Vigilance Case No. 84A/01. In this proceeding the petitioner duly appeared and he has been appearing in this proceeding on all the dates. Even though the proceeding remains pending and no final order was passed therein, the authorities acting in a high-handed manner forcibly demolished a portion of the boundary wall of the petitioner. The Authority may find itself in a very awkward position if the statements made in this writ petition are found to the correct. Put up in the same list after thre weeks. In the mean while, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate will obtain instructions and file a counter affidavit answering the averments 3 made in this writ petition. Till further orders, the respondent Authority is restrained from carrying out any further demolition of any portion of the petitioner’s house/wall. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Ashok Kumar.” It has to be noted that the petitioner has asserted that whatever construction was raised by him was in keeping with the sanctioned plan vide Plan Case No. 45 of 1985, which had clearly shown the building to be located in a lane which was the blind lane and thus requiring 12 ft. wide road. Grievance of the petitioner is that when this aspect of the matter had stood confirmed even in the earlier order of the Vice Chairman of the P.R.D.A. dated 8.12.1995 (Annexure-1) the authorities of the P.R.D.A. on their own whims and on being misled by some vested interest, had reversed their earlier view that there was no blind lane rather there was a thoroughfare, requiring at least a 20ft. wide road. It is to be noted only this basis demolition of part of the boundary wall of the petitioner had already been made and therefore when the petitioner has asserted in the writ application that there was no thoroughfare rather in the year 1985 when plan was sanctioned by PRDA it was a blind lane, some one was required to go in this aspect by looking into the master plan/any other document of the year 1985 showing lay out of the roads in the area of the petitioner and in the town of Patna. This Court in this regard would find that the order 4 dated 15.9.2006 as communicated to the petitioner by Annexure- 5, assailed in the I.A. application by way of amendment, was also passed without hearing the petitioner. True it is that the said order records that the petitioner despite notice did not appear, but then the petitioner had a valid reason as the issue was subjudice before this Court from 10.9.2002 and a long interim order was passed on 11.9.2002 which does take care of all the grievances of the petitioner for which this writ application was filed. This Court has also perused the counter affidavit and the justification of action of the P.R.D.A seems to be based on certain assumptions alone. This Court however in absence of the authentic documents particularly layout plan of Roads in Patna town as in the year 1985 is not in a position to decide the dispute and as such would remit the matter back to the Municipal Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation to decide the matter afresh. It goes without saying that no one gains by obstructing the road in front of his own house, but then if there was no such law prohibiting construction of building by the side of twelve feet wide road, the P.R.D.A. could not have gone into the issue as to whether petitioner had exceeded in making construction of his building as mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of his wife or by taking into account that certain deviations were made in the building constructed by the 5 petitioner in relation to 1985 sanction. For such deviations from the sanctioned plan the petitioner was supposed to be noticed in the different proceedings and they could not have been used as retaliatory measures only because the petitioner had objected to construction and widening of road by coercing him either to surrender his land and get his constructed building demolished. Since the P.R.D.A. now is not in existence and is replaced by the Patna Municipal Corporation, the Town Municipal Commissioner is directed to reconsider the whole issue afresh and if necessary by not only looking into the authentic documents as with regard to the road in question but also by examining other pleas of the petitioner in respect of the construction already made by him in pursuance of the sanctioned plan of the petitioner. That being so, this Court would quash the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 and remit the matter back to the Town Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation for passing a fresh order. In order to expedite the matter the petitioner may file a self contained representation setting out his case as also the grievance supported by document, whereafter an opportunity of personal hearing will be given to the petitioner and also to any other person of the neighborhood of the petitioner who would like to oppose prayer of the petitioner and is interested in widening of the road in the concerned area. 6 It is made clear that till final decision is taken by the Town Municipal Commissioner no further coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and status-quo as existing today shall be continued to be maintained till the disposal of the whole matter afresh by the aforesaid authority of Patna Municipal Corporation. With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is finally disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)