PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. AMITABH RANJAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE chequered history of this case is almost 32 years old. On 6.1.1970 vide Resolution No. 14/70 the appellant Patna Regional Development Authority (in short 'the PRDA') resolved to settle certain parts of land abutting the houses mentioned therein with the lessees/owners of the houses. THE land in dispute admeasuring 0.83 katha situate by the side of House No. M-3/23. On 3.3.1970 Rewati Mohan Mishra, the father of the petitioners, a lessee of the above referred house was offered the land for Rs. 2463 @ Rs. 3760 per katha. It appears that the petitioners' father was reluctant because the land was under encroachment and delivery of actual physical possession was not possible, However, the said Rewati Mohan Mishra moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1393 of 1982 which was disposed of in terms of a consent order. THE relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

(2.) THE said petition was disposed of on 16.8.1988. From the said observations it would appear that the PRDA was required to remove the encroachment whatever type it was and said Rewati Mohan Mishra was given liberty to apply to the authority in accordance with law to have the vacant plot settled with him and the authority was required to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(3.) IT would be worth noting that the order was made on 23.7.1998 and three months' time was given to the PRDA but petitioners' father, made a representation on 6.8.1998 along with a cheque for Rs. 37350 representing the current price of the land in terms of the Court's order. The said cheque was returned on 3.9.1998 saying that the decision with respect to the land was pending. The present petitioners thereafter moved this Court in M.J.C. No. 3139/1998. By the order, dated 16.11.1998 this Court observed that the earlier order dated 23.7.1998 was quite clear and did not require any clarification. The High Court, however, observed that if the PRDA has not acted in accordance with the Rules in constructing the road, as alleged on behalf of the petitioners, which has been seriously disputed by Counsel appearing for the PRDA, the petitioners may seek appropriate relief in appropriate proceedings. IT appears that the petitioners thereafter filed the present writ application. The petitioners say that the road was to be constructed within a period of three months in accordance with the Rules, if permissible but as the Rules provide that there shall be no road of width less than 7 metres (22 feet) the PRDA was not justified in constructing the road of 10 feet width only. They submitted that the manner in which the PRDA and its officers have acted and have exhibited their high-handedness would clearly show that they, have scant, nay, no regards for the Rule of law or to the authoritative pronouncements of this Court. By the writ application the petitioners prayed that in accordance with the earlier judgments of this Court a direction be issued to the PRDA to settle the said road in favour of the petitioners. The respondent-PRDA in its counter has submitted that the total land was 1130 sq. ft. IT was proposed to be settled with the father of the petitioners, the said offer was not accepted and thereafter the road came under encroachment. According to them the road was constructed well within time and as 22 feet or more width was not available, standing to their words and to honour the same, they had constructed 10 feet wide road. They have submitted that the petitioners were somehow or the other creating nuisance and problem in construction of the road and wanted to take advantage of their own wrong. IT has also been submitted by them that after construction of the road for which the authority has spent a good fortune the petitioners were not entitled to any relief.