Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: prda in Vivek Arora And Anr. vs Patna Regional Development Authority ... on 26 June, 2000Matching Fragments
1. The petitioners are tenants in a portion of a building bearing holding No. 599A standing on plot No. 821 of Fraser Road in Patna town owned by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Ehsan Raza and Talat Raza (hereinafter referred to as 'private respondents'). They are aggrieved by the order of the Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) directing demolition of their tenanted portion of the building. The relevant facts are as follows:
2. The private respondents constructed the building after getting sanction of the building plan from the PRDA in Plan Case No. 593/80 on 5.3.82. The building is a market complex. Two rooms thereof, which are subject-matter of the dispute, were let out to the petitioners in 1982. They have been doing business in the premises in the name of 'Vinayak Furniture', now 'Sri Vinayak Foods'. On 1.11.95, the private respondents got another building plan sanctioned with respect to a seven storied building (G+7) vide case No. PCA/8-48/95. In the said building plan, the disputed premises was shown as 'set-back' area of the proposed building. The case of the petitioners is that the sanction was obtained suppressing the fact that part of the building was under their tenancy. On 23.8.97, they filed application for review of the order dated 1.11.95 and cancellation of the sanction. They also filed intervention application in Vigilance case No. 136A/96 which had been instituted against the private respondents on the complaint of one Keshav Prasad Singh alleging that they were making construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan in case No. PCA/8-48/95. On 26.8.97 the Vice-Chairman passed the impugned order in Vigilance Case No. 136A/96 directing the private respondents to demolish part of the projection/balcony beyond the sanctioned 0.6 metre and the old existing structure in accordance with the building plan sanctioned in case No. PCA/8-48/95, failing which the PRDA would demolish the unauthorised construction and recover the cost of demolition from the respondents as arrear of land revenue. No order on the application dated 23.8.97 filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order and cancellation of the sanction, apparently, was passed. The petitioners preferred appeal being appeal No. 34 of 1998 before the Appellate Tribunal against the said order which was dismissed on 9.6.99. The private respondents, it seems, had also challenged the order dated 26.8.97 in Appeal No. 27 of 1997 before the Appellate Tribunal which too was dismissed on the next day, i.e., 10.6.99. The petitioners in the circumstances came to this Court in the present writ petition seeking direction upon the Vice-Chairman, PRDA to decide the review application, and quashing of the said impugned orders dated 26.8.97 and 9.6.99. Copies of the orders have been enclosed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition.
6. The PRDA has also filed counter-affidavit in which it has challenged the focus standi of the petitioners, contending that a tenant has no legal right to insist upon prior notice or to challenge the order of demolition with respect to a building in which he is a tenant. The PRDA has also denied the petitioners' case that the respondents had made any material suppression or misrepresentation pointing out that on the day when the sanction was granted, i.e., 1.11.95, no suit or proceeding with respect to the land/building was pending before any Court or authority. The suit was filed much later in 1997. Had the suit been pending at the time of grant of sanction and the fact been suppressed, this could amount to suppression of material fact warranting cancellation of the sanction. The PRDA has also questioned the maintainability of the review application contending that the RDA Act does not contain any provision for review.
That the lessee covenants not to block the passage leading to the main building at any time.
That the lessee covenants not to interfere in the construction of the 1st., 2nd., 3rd., 4th. or 5th floor going up as the said building under construction is to be multi-storied one.
13. In S.K. Pari Boring Road Vyapari Sangh v. State of Bihar 1999(1) PLJR 418, a Division Bench of this Court has held that in the matter of proposed demolition of a building under Section 54 of the Act, the only persons entitled to opportunity of hearing are the owner of the building or the person at whose instance the construction, erection or development work has been or is being carried on. The plea that tenant is also entitled to similar opportunity was categorically ejected. Shri Giri attempted to distinguish the case contending that the structures in which the shop-keepers, i.e., tenants in that case were doing business was illegal structures whereas the building in question in the present case was constructed by the private respondents under a valid sanctioned building plan. Shri Giri relied on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1996 (2) PLJR 621. That decision, I find, was distinguished in more or less similar case as the present one, namely, Shishir Kumar Jain v. PRDA 1998(3) PUR 677. The Court noted that in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited case the tenant, i.e., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. had made construction and installed a petrol pump after proper sanction of the competent authorities including the District Magistrate and the PRDA and it was in this background that steps taken by the PRDA for demolition of structure without notice to such a tenant was found to be illegal and arbitrary. This Court thus, distinguished the cases of tenants who had made constructions themselves and tenants who were in possession of the building constructed by the owner within the meaning of Section 54 of the Act. Shri Giri submitted that the correctness of the decision in Shishir Kumar Jain's (supra) case is pending consideration before the Division Bench in LPA No. 1192 of 1998 which has been admitted for hearing. I am not impressed by this submission. Until and unless the Judgment is set aside, I do not think, merely on the ground of pendency of appeal, the Judgment cannot be read as precedent.
16. The petitioners cannot draw any help from the pendency of the eviction suit. The Eviction suit came to be filed only after the PRDA passed order directing the private respondents to demolish the impugned portion and the legal notice served by them on the petitioners failed to elicit any response. It may be mentioned here that though in the event of owner or the person at whose instance the erection or development work had been done or is being done, failing to carry out the direction of the Vice-Chairman, it is open to the PRDA to demolish the building or portion thereof by its own means, the owner or the other person concerned is liable to be prosecuted. The private respondents had, therefore, little option but to institute the eviction suit against the petitioners for their eviction to show their bona fide, after the Vice-Chairman, PRDA passed the impugned order on 26.8.97.