(1.) ORDER This batch of cases come to this court from the controversy arising from the steps taken by the Patna Regional Dev. Authority to demolish houses or portions thereof with the object of widening the lanes in the Mohallas of East and West Lohanipur. These two Mohallas are among the relatively older localities of the town where the houses came up like mushrooms without any order of planning. Some of the houses which are under threat of demolition are said to have been constructed in the 1st or the 2nd decade of this century when according to their owners there was no statutory requirement for obtaining sanction for contructing a house in that area. There are of course a large number of other houses which are not so old; some of them might have been constructed on the basis of some sanctioned plans; others were constructed either without a sanctioned plan or in deviation from a sanctioned plan if there was one at all. The result, as would not be far to imagine, is a maze of narrow lanes some of which are so narrow that no motorised vehicle can pass through them; some lanes are admittedly as narrow as under 10 ' in width and it is reported that even a cycle rickshaw might enter there with difficulty. Water logging is also reported to be a chronic problem.
(2.) THE Patna Regional Dev. Authority ( 'the Authority ' hereinafter) has undertaken the herculian task of widening the lanes of this locality. The Authority is acting in compliance with the direction given by this court from time to time in different cases (e.g. CWJC No. 2290/1990 Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. State of Bihar; CWJC No. 1237/1997 : Dayamanti Devi vs. State of Bihar and others; CWJC No. 1271/1997 : Parbhawati Shukla and another vs. State of Bihar and more recently and having a direct bearing on this matter in CWJC No. 1363/1998 : Chandramauleshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar and others.
(3.) IN course of submissions, counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, namely, Mr. H.S. Himkar for the Authority, Mr. Sanjay Singh, S.C. IX appearing for the State and the different counsel, including Mr. Ram Suresh Roy and Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar appearing for the petitioners in the batch of cases agreed that a more reasonable, viable and practical approach was required to be taken in this regard. While all concerned are in agreement that it is paramount that the lanes of the locality be widened upto 20 ' or as near it as may be practicable, there was also a general agreement that this object should be achieved by trying to cause as less damage to the individual house owners as possible. The parties were also in agreement that a committee should go into this question and try to evolve a scheme for the widening of the lanes in this locality which might be acceptable to all concerned.