RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL Vs. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Prafulla Ranjan Shrivastava learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition, learned counsel representing the P.R.D.A. and Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, appearing for respondents four to seven.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed against orders passed by the Vice -Chairman of the Authority on a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 54 of the Bihar Regional Development Authorities Act and by the Chairman, Appellate Tribunal, holding that the petitioner 'sappeal against the order passed by the Vice -Chairman was not maintainable.

(3.) THE petitioner made a complaint before the Vice -Chairman of the Authority alleging that in the construction of their houses the respondents had committed a number of irregularities. The complaint was in respect of two houses of the respondents, one situate at Ashok Raj Path and the other at Rajendra Nagar. In this case we are concerned with the Ashok Raj Path house/shop. In his complaint the petitioner alleged the following irregularities committed by the respondents in the construction of their house/shop at Ashok Raj Path : (i) the construction was made without any sanctioned plan, (ii) the construction was made without leaving any set -backs on any of the four sides of the house, (iii) the construction was made in violation of the floor -area -ratio norms and (iv) that in making the construction, encroachment was made over 'huge Govt. lands from west side of the house '. The complaint was later supplemented by another petition in which many other irregularities were pointed out. Some of the allegations made by the petitioner were patently unfounded inasmuch as the respondents did have a sanctioned map and an amended sanctioned map for construction of the building. Further, in 1979 when the maps were sanctioned there were no FAR norms and if there was any provision for leaving set -backs on the Ashok Raj Path, counsel for the petitioner was unable to bring it to the notice of the Court. Further, it appears from the order of the Vice - Chairman that at the time of hearing of the matter the only issue raised before him was the encroachment made in the galli lying adjacent west to the house of the respondents. On that issue the impugned order made the following observations :