Patna High Court - Orders
Baptist Union Church & Anr vs The P.R.D.A. & Ors on 1 March, 2013
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.458 of 2007
======================================================
1.Baptist Union Church ,Bekerganj, Baripath, Patna through its Secretary.
2.Henry Haroon son of late Haroon resident of Bhadraghat, p.O.
Guljarbagh, P.S.Alamganj, District- Patna,SEcretary of the Baptist Union
Church, Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.The Patna Regional development Authority through it's Secretary,
Maurya Lok Complex, Patna.
2.The Vice Chairman, PRDA, Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road,
Patna.
3.The Secretary, PRDA, Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road, Patna.
4.The Assistant Engineer, PRDA, Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow
Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh
For the Corporation : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 01-03-2013By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Chairman of erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority passed in Case no. 35 B of 2002 (Sri Henry Haroon-v- State), which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The said order states that the proceeding having been initiated on 20.3.2002 on 52 dates the petitioner had not appeared. It was ordered that all structures built by the petitioners on their land be demolished and removed within thirty days, failing which the structures will be removed by the authorities at the cost of the petitioners.
On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that prior to this a notice was published in newspaper. The petitioners enquired Patna High Court CWJC No.458 of 2007 (4) dt.01-03-2013 2 and found that in that notice their names were no where mentioned. Newspaper notice is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners have got sanctioned plan and subsequently they have filed revised plan. It is further submitted that the proceeding was initiated at the stage when original plan was sent for sanction without taking note of the revised sanctioned plan. It is specifically stated that complete order sheet of the case would show that neither the notice was issued nor validly served on the petitioners.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
It is not necessary for this Court to go into the merit of the case. Suffice it to say that the entire proceedings have been conducted in gross violation of principle of natural justice. So called newspaper notice clearly shows that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein. Some one else name is printed. There is no contradiction to the petitioners' averments nor notice was actually issued to the petitioner much less served. In such a situation the order and that too the extreme order of demolition cannot be sustained. The impugned order as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition is set aside. Liberty is given to the Patna High Court CWJC No.458 of 2007 (4) dt.01-03-2013 3 authority to take action in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) singh/-