Patna High Court - Orders
Priti Niwas @ Preeti Niwas vs Patna Municipal Corporation on 1 November, 2022
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar, Nawneet Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.411 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15878 of 2014
======================================================
Priti Niwas @ Preeti Niwas wife of Pankaj Niwas, resident of Parmanand
Path Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, P.S.- Budha Colony District - Patna
Bihar presently residing at 2004, Nahar Amrit Shakti Opp Nahar International
School, Chandivali, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400072.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Patna Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner, Maurya
Lok, Patna.
2. Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna.
3. Sri. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Parmanand Path, Nageshwar
Colony, P.S. - Budha Colony, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajeev Kr. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Manu Tripurari, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prasoon Sinha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
2 01-11-2022I.A. No. 1 of 2022 The present interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 290 days in preferring the present appeal.
For the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2022 stands allowed. Patna High Court L.P.A No.411 of 2022(2) dt.01-11-2022 2/5 L.P.A. No. 411 of 2022 The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 15878 of 2014 whereby he has refused to interfere with the orders passed by the appellate Tribunal, PRDA on 03.04.2006 passed in Appeal No. 54 of 2005 and of the Vice Chairman dated 28.10.2005 in Vigilance Case No. 44-B of 2005.
The learned Single Judge did not find any error in the orders of the Vice Chairman or of the appellate Tribunal and therefore, refused to interfere.
The appellant/writ petitioner had purchased approximately 544 sq. ft. of land for constructing a residential building. The building was constructed, according to the appellant, only after obtaining the required sanction from the PRDA, but, on a complaint by one of the residents in the locality that the appellant had encroached upon public road, a Vigilance Case No. 44-B of 2005 was initiated, in which an ex-parte order was passed by the Vice Chairman for demolition of the part of the building which was an Patna High Court L.P.A No.411 of 2022(2) dt.01-11-2022 3/5 encroachment on public land.
The case of the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that there was no deviation in the construction and the width of the road, according to the original plan, which was 10 feet still remains the same. It further appears from the order of the learned Single Judge that the road, over which encroachment has been alleged, is an important link road, which was inspected by the Vice Chairman of the PRDA who found that there were deviations, leading to encroachment on public land.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in case of any deviation, it could be ordered by the authorities for removal or correction of such deviation but, directing for demolition of the house of the petitioner for encroachment is absolutely untenable.
The learned Single Judge did not look into the aforenoted aspect of the matter and refused to interfere with the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the Vice Chairman of PRDA.
On the last occasion when the matter was taken up Patna High Court L.P.A No.411 of 2022(2) dt.01-11-2022 4/5 for hearing, without recording any direction, we had requested Sri Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel for the PMC, which has succeeded PRDA, to make a personal inspection of the site and find out whether there was any encroachment by the appellant and whether there was substance in the complaint made by one of the residents of that locality.
Apart from acting with a quest for delivering justice to an aggrieved party, we have also taken into account that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done as the complainant appears to be an important person. We make it clear that with respect to the rights of the parties, it does not matter who is strong or weak. We only wish to be satisfied whether there is any encroachment or mere deviation in the plan which could be corrected without any demolition. This was the purpose, we reiterate, for asking the counsel for the PMC to make a personal inspection of the site.
Mr. Sinha submits that he had been to the plot and that he shall give his report by the next date of hearing.
We were contemplating of passing an interim Patna High Court L.P.A No.411 of 2022(2) dt.01-11-2022 5/5 order, restraining the parties from taking any precipitate action but, Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel for the PMC has informed this Court that an undertaking has been given by the parties that no demolition shall take place before measurement and that the parties shall abide by such measurement.
Re-notify on 09.11.2022.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) ( Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) rishi/-
U