SUROMA PAL Vs. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No controversies are raised in this applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the only prayer is for (sic) of a writ in the nature of mandamus (sic) Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 (sic) execute the order dated 29 4.88 passed (sic) Respondent No. 1. By the said order Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had been directed (sic) 10 feet of land both in the front (sic) in the rear of the land in question and to dismantle the construction standing thereon meant for set back within 30 days and failing which the said construction would be dismantled by the Respondent No. 1 and the cost thereof realised from them as arrears of land revenue. Both the Petitioners were substituted in place of their mother who died on 21.4.1994.

(2.) The facts of the case are these. The Petitioner's mother was the owner of holding No. 72/80, Circle No. 16, Sabzibagh, Patna, under the Patna Municipal Corporation. One, Anil Kumar of Sabzibagh, Patna, addressed a complaint to the Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority (in short P.R.D.A.) alleging that Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were constructing a commercial building over holding No. 74/63, Ward No. 15, Circle No. 16 without the sanction of any plan by the P.R.D.A. without leaving any set back causing untold difficulty to the people. On the orders of the Vice-Chairman, P.R.D.A., J.E. inspected the plot and submitted his report with sketch map. Meanwhile the Petitioner's mother also filed a complaint alleging that Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5 had constructed a market complex without the sanction of the P.R.D.A after encroaching upon the public land and the constructions made obstructed the passage of light and air to her house. Again under the orders of Vice-Chairman one A.E. inspected the spot and submitted a report against Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 along with a sketch map. On the basis of the aforesaid two reports one by the J.E. and the other by the A.E., a proceeding was drawn and notices to show cause were issued. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 appeared and filed their show cause and documents. The Vice-Chairman, P.R.D.A., after considering their cause and documents was pleased to pass the order dated 29.4.88 (Annexure-1) directing Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to vacate the land in terms already indicated above.

(3.) According to the Petitioners, Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed Appeal No, 18 of 1988 before the Appellate Tribunal, P.R.D.A. (Respondent No. 2) against the impugned order dated 29.4.88 (Annexure-1). Respondent No. 2 by its order 18.11.88 copy of which is Annexure-2 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Vice-Chairman (Respondent No. 1). It is alleged that even after the aforesaid judgment of the appellate authority, Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 took no steps to comply with the order of the Vice-Chairman. The P.R.D.A. also did not take any steps to dismantle the construction standing on the land i.e. 10 feet both in front and the rear of the land in question meant for set back. The Petitioner's mother made a number of unsuccessful attempts to get the order (Annexure-1) carried out by approaching the P.R.D.A. The Petitioner's mother was ultimately obliged to file a petition dated 10.4.90 before the Vice-Chairman, P.R.D.A. a copy of which is Annexure-3 praying for taking immediate steps for removal of the structure as per order dated 29.4.88. The P.R.D.A. failed to carry out its legal duty by not complying with the directions contained in the order of the Vice-Chairman vide Annexure-1 and affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-2 and hence a prayer is made for issue of writ of mandamus commanding the P.R.D.A. to carry out the said directions as contained in Annexure-1. The Petitioner claims that if the order (Annexure-1) is not implemented she will suffer an irreparable loss and injury which will amount to a denial of life to her within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution and as such the encroachment as mentioned in Annexure-1 should be removed or caused to be removed by an officer of the P.R.D.A.