Smt. Krishna Singh and others vs The State of Bihar and others

S. Shamsul Hasan, J.—The pet�tioners in this application being irked by the establishment of the rcspondent-society being respondent no. 3, have been seeking succour from the court of justice under Article 226 of the Constitution. Their original foray to this Court ended in faihixe at our hands, thus, leading them to seek their reliefs under Article 136 of the Conttitution of �ndia from the higher Court of the land, the Supreme Court. When the matter was taken up for hearing after grant of leave, a consent order was passed by which the judg-ment of this Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to this Court "so that the High Court should ascertain whether.the lay out of the plots allotted in favour of respondents 5 to 29 is in accordance witb the Master Plan of September 1961 of Patna, as amended from time to time in accordance with law". (Inverted cominas are mine). It was further dir-ecteo tbat any construction made by the Society or the other respondents will be subject to the final result of the writ petition in the High-Court. The main issues to be examined.by us, in the light of the direction of the Supreme Court are, therefore, as follows :-

(i) The Master Fan of the rea has to be first ascertained;

(ii) It has to be discovered, if any amend-ment has been made to the Master Plan; and

(iii) If the alignmin�s of roads and lay out of other reas of the Master Plan, are affected by any or all the plots allotled to any of the respondents, %)entjoned above, i.e. respondents 5 to 19

Taking up the points cumulatively, the Master Plan, as stands, is undisputed and con-ta�ns the desire of the Patna Imporvement Trust, the authority at the lime the Master Plan was brought into existence, and now lhe P.R.D.A., proposed to do in its ambition to make Patna a more attractive cjty developed on scientific line ket ping in mind the environmental and natural requirements of a city. This plan, as it appcars from the preface, had a limited life span and, thus, appeared to have lost its force after the expiry of the period fixed by the GovetnL.ent. What was missed in the earlier judgmem was the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981. For the remiss I take the fullest responsibility, though it was caused because our attention was not drawn to this aectioo. According to this provision the Plan after the period fixed for its span of life would be decmed to be in existence till another Master Plan is passed or the present one is altered and modified. Except for the submission of the petitioners based on map nos. 26 and 29 there was nothing to show that the Master Plan, as it originally stood, has been amended, altered or changed. I, therefore. correct my earlier finding and hold that the Master Plan is operational. One aspect, however, cannot be ignored and it is worthy to notice that lhe pious deiire of the creater of the Master Plan Dai floundered on the rocks of unplanned dev-etopment based on factors inexplicable. Relevant sections of Bibar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (Act 40 of 1982) that apply to the factual situations in this application are "eotion 17, sections IS, 19,20,21,22,23 and 24 of the Act. According to these provisions the Master Plan has been kept alive even after the date of its expiry by efflux of time and by the lubsequent provision, procedures for the formullation of a Master Plan and its subsequent alte-rations and amendments have been laid down.

The stand of the respondents-private and oficiais including the Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the P.R.D.A.'') and the State was that there was no amendmentto the Master Plan in acc-ordanctPwith the manner prescribed in ia v and set out above. The petitioners, however, relied on two maps beiog described as map no. 26 and map no. 29. These maps �xfacle do not appear to be maps prepared in accordance with law and cannot be said to be maps that can be described as amended form of Master Plan. No material was placed by the petitioners to show that the maps relied upon by them as amendments to th.: Master Plan nor any other material was brought on lhe ncord to indicate that the Master Plan was amended.

The map filed on behalf of the respondents, which is lhe phoiostut oopy of appropriate porfiou of tne Masier Plan, clearly indicates a road, which according lo lhe petitioners, has been encroached up.n. li will be relevant now to state the claim ol the petitioners, particularly of petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who were really the vociferous panies before us in ibis dispute. The firot grievance is that the colony, respondem no. 5, bas encroached u;?on the proposed 60 feet road shown in lhe Master Plan and, the second grievance is that this colODy has abo encroached upon the proposed 100 feet road, whicb cuts across CO feet road on which petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have thejr houses, indicated in map no. 29. According to the respondentt the 100 feet proposed road was no part of the Master Plan nor was it in any subsequent amendment of the said plan. In regard to the 60 feet road the stand of the respondents is that the colony has not affected any encroachment on 60 feet road, and this road passes dose to the colony without any obslruction, as indicated in the map produced by them, and according to the P.R.D.A. the teohnical report, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition, made at the time when the lay outof this colony was being examined and processed, clearly stated that tbis respondent colony did not encroaoh upon 60 feet road, which was at least 100 feet north of this Colony.

Needless to say that the correctness of this report has been assailed by the petitioners. In regard to the 100 feet road nothing more need be said because I have held lhat map no. H as well as 26 is not a map that could be attributed the description of being an amendment to the Master Plan. Corning lo the 60 feet road in the light of the pleading and the claim of the parties, it seems that it has become a disputed question of fact, defying ali efforts of this Court to obtaia a solution, which is with-in the narrow scope of this application.

We have, therefore, to seek an alternative and the only solution I feel most convenient is that the location of the 60 feet road may be ascertair.ed afresh by getting the physical situation ctarified by measuring the entire arca to secure the correct pioture of the alignment of the 60 feet road. This could only be done by a Committee of Technical Experts, who would be more adequately equipped to ascertain the real state of affairs frora the factual and legal angle. The result of the inquiry will have two effects (i) if the colony, respondent no. 5, does not entroach upon the 60 feet road, nothing more is required to be done, and (ii) the claim of the petitioners would be entirely untenable. If, however, the proposed 60 feet road has been eocrcached upon, then two aspects have to be con:idered and implemented by the P.R.D.A., either to direct that the lay out of the respondent colony be so altereo or so changed that the proposed �onstruetion of the road is not obstrueted which may include the removal of the plot actually covering the road. If, however, as things stand, the constiuction of the proposed road has become entirely unfeasible by efflux of time and earlier authorised construetions in other parts of the road, then the f.R.D.A. should ensure that the right of petitioner no. 2 of ingress and egress to her garage is not affected and suitable arrangement be made to ensure the exercite of that right by petitioner no. 2.1 may state that learned counsel made a orievance relating to the obstruction caused to petitioner no. 2 by, according to him, blocking of the entry to the garage. In regard to the other petitioners the 60 feet road Does not touch their plots in any manner.

Before concluding, I may again reiterate that any other problem arising out of the non-performance of the requirements of the Act and the Rules regarding Construetion of houses will be strictly enforded by the P. R. D. A. so that the right of the petitioners is not affected by any illegality in the Construetion by respondents 6 to 29.

Concluding, therefore, I direct that a Committee consisting of the Chief Engineer, P. R. D. A. as Chairman Convenor, or any one performing his duty, in case his post is vacant, and two Engineers abova the rank of the Executive Engineers nominated by the petitioners jointly and the respondents jointly at their own costs, will form themselves into a Committee to measure the rea scientifically and as directed above, and give their findings to the Board in regard to these situations spelt out by me above. The nomination must be made by the petitioners and the respondents within two weeks from today, which nomination should be sent to the Chairman-cum convenor, who should undertake to complete the measurement and furnish the report on the lines directed by me above within four months from today. If either party faiis to nominate his representative within the period specified, the Committee should proceed with their nominees and dispose of matter within the stipulated time. The recommendation ofthe Committee should be implemented by the P. R. D. A. forthwith. In the result, the application is allowed to the extent, indicated above, but without costs.

Hari Lal Agarwal, J.

I agree.