RAJ KISHORE SHARMA Vs. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing of the order dated 29th October, 1991 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Patna Regional development Authority, respondent No. 3, confirming the order of the Vice-chairman (Respondent No. 2) dated 8. 12. 1988 in vigilance Case No. 35a/88 that the construction of the premises in question was made in contravention of the provisions of section 23 and 36 of the Bihar Regional development Authority Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). Copies of the aforementioned orders are annexures 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) TO appreciate the point at issue in my view it would be appropriate to have a brief survey of some of the facts. The petitioners purchased Plot No. 1804 in ward No. 27 Rai Jai Krishna Road, Patna city to set up a rolling mill. They also got the building plan sanctioned by the Executive Officer of the Patna Corporation under the provision of section 233 of the Patna municipal Corporation Act in the year 1981. Thereafter, the construction of the said factory, shed, godown and other formalities were complete by 1982. In the meantime, respondents 4 and 5 made a complaint before the Patna Regional Development authority that the construction of building, including installation of factory by the petitioners were without any approval as required under sections 23 and 36 of the Act. It was alleged that: no approval was ever obtained by the petitioners from the competent authority.

(3.) IT would be apt to notice that after promulgation of the Bihar Regional Development Authority ordinance in the year 1974, which was substituted by the Act, the Patna municipal Corporation had no longer any jurisdiction to sanction plan for erection or renovation of buildings over a land which was included in the master plan by the patna Regional Development Authority. The vice-Chairman of the Patna Regional development Authority therefore got the matter inquired into and after giving proper opportunity to both the parties by the order, contained in Annexure-2, held that construction of the building to establish factory by the petitioners over the land in question was in contravention of provisions of sections 23 and 36 of the Act. He accordingly directed the petitioners to remove the premises within a period of 30 days, failing which steps were to be taken for removal of the encroachment.