GAURI SHANKAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a single petitioner before this Court who seeks to challenge an order dated 2-8-1999 (Annexure 1) passed by the Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Dev. Authority ('the Authority', hereinafter) in Case No. 12167/1996. By the impugned order the petitioner is directed to surrender, for widening of the lanes, strips of land 5' 6" deep on the northern side and 5' deep on the eastern side of his plot, over which his residential house is constructed. The order further states that on petitioner's failure to surrender the strips of land as directed, those will be taken over by force, with the help of armed forces and, if so required, by demolishing portions of his house, the cost of which would also be realised from the petitioner.

(2.) The Authority in purported compliance with the directions given by this Court appears to be engaged in the widening of a lane, called the 'Nutan Chetan School Lane' going eastwards from Yarpur road. In that connection the petitioner was earlier threatened with demolition of portions of his house. He then came to this Court in CWJC No. 12167 of 1996 seeking its protection against any demolition of his house on the plea that it was constructed on the basis of and in accordance with a construction plan duly sanctioned by the Patna Improvement Trust (the predecessor of the present Authority). That writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 12-1-1997 (Annexure 7) with a direction to the Vice Chairman of the Authority to dispose of the representation earlier filed before him by the petitioner in that regard. It was further directed that the Vice Chairman should have, the measurements of the petitioner's plot along with its adjoining land/lane taken in his presence and should then take a final decision on this matter. It was further observed that if on the basis of the measurements taken, it is found that the house of the petitioner was making any encroachment, he should be first allowed an opportunity to remove the encroachment(s) within 48 hours failing which the authorities would be free to remove the encroachment(s) forcibly and to realise the cost from the petitioner.

(3.) Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 12167 of 1996, measurements were then and on the basis of the measurement report, the Vice Chairman passed the impugned order.