Back
1999 Supreme(Pat) 75
PATNA HIGH COURT
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
Parmottam Prasad Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10144 of 1998 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 3, 1999
The State or its authorities are subject to "etat de droit", i.e. the State is submitted to the law which implies that all actions of the State or its authority and officials must be carried out subject to the constitution and within the limits set by the law.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - ENCROACHMENT - BIHAR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1981 - SECTION 10 - PUBLIC ROAD - ENCROACHMENT - DEMOLITION - BOUNDARY WALL - COMPENSATION - The Patna High Court held that the demolition of the petitioner's boundary wall by the Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of a plot in Patna, alleged that the PRDA had illegally demolished a portion of his boundary wall and gate pillars on the ground that they encroached on a public road. The petitioner claimed that he had not encroached on any public land and that the demolition was carried out without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no encroachment on the public road and that the petitioner had constructed his house and boundary wall twenty years back after obtaining necessary sanction from the Patna Improvement Trust. The court held that the PRDA's action in demolishing the boundary wall was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the PRDA had the authority to demolish the petitioner's boundary wall without giving him a prior notice and opportunity of hearing? 2. Whether the petitioner had encroached on any public land?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the PRDA's action in demolishing the petitioner's boundary wall was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The court relied on the following principles: 1. The State or its authorities are subject to "etat de droit", i.e. the State is submitted to the law which implies that all actions of the State or its authority and officials must be carried out subject to the constitution and within the limits set by the law. 2. Executive or administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made in conformity with the rule of natural justice, which at least requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the person affected thereby.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the PRDA to forthwith repair and/or reconstruct the pillars and the boundary wall of the petitioner not later than two weeks from the date of the order. The court also directed the PRDA to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 by way of compensation for the mental pain and agony suffered to the petitioner.
1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the respondents act of damaging/demolishing his eastern boundary wall from the north and damaging north-eastern pillar of one of his gates on 21-10-98 was illegal act exhibiting gross highhandedness for which the petitioner is entitled to an exemplary compensation. The petitioner also prayed for grant of payment of cost for the repair and reconstruction of damaged structure which was illegally demolished by the respondents.
2. The petitioner case is that he is the owner of plot No. 46-B situated in Shrikrishna Puri in the town of Patna which was allotted to him by the Patna Improvement Trust in the year 1966 by virtue of a registered lease cum deed agreement dated 23-8-1969. As per boundary given in the deed there are four plots on the three sides and 80 wide roads towards north as well as east as this plot as well as its adjacent plots are located on a more middle of north-east. The petitioner house and plot has boundary walls on all the four sides in accordance with the deed/lease agreement. He constructed a house as per a duly sanctioned plan on the said plot since more than two decades and is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that towards the adjacent north-east of the petitioner plot, plot No. 47B is situated in which a house was built after obtaining sanction plan from the Patna Improvement Trust 20 years back. The north-east boundary of the petitioner was built by him and it is serving as common boundary wall between him and plot No. 47B. At the northern end of this boundary there are pillars attached to it, one belonged to the petitioner to support one of his gate and the other also in plot No. 47B to support one of his gates of the said plot. The petitioner case is that he has not encroached any part of the 80 wide public road on north-east and the boundary wall as well as the gate pillars attached to it are well within allotted private lands. The road beyond the constructed boundary walls as well as pillars is 80 wide without any encroachment. The petitioner case is that he never received any notice from the respondents nor marking was ever put on their pillars or boundary walls in spite of measurement held in the area to indicate any encroachment by the petitioner on the public road. However, during the Deewali holidays the respondents authorities started with rough and ready device of removing the alleged encroachment in Shri Krishna Puri Mohalla against several houses built with sanctioned plans. In course of such action a team of officials/employees of respondent No. 2 along with a jeep loaded with Armed Police and a powerful crane like machine came at the house of the petitioner and in presence of petitioner son who is a doctor and without any plausible explanation used force and machine to forcibly damage the northern end of petitioner wall which is common with plot No. 47B, and the pillars of gate attached to both sides of that common wall built by the petitioner long back in accordance with laws of the subject on the ground that the length of the said wall as allegedly more than what should have been as per dimension of adjacent plot No. 47B. It is stated that such action of the respondents has led to lack of security for the house of the petitioner as well as his adjacent neighbour as gates are badly disturbed due to serious damage to the supporting pillars. Such incident shocked the petitioner who is a retired public servant when he came back from his village home after few days. The petitioner case is that the aforesaid illegal act was done deliberately in violation of principles of rule of law and it has caused material as well as mental injury to the petitioner for the reason that there was no encroachment on any public land or road and still 80 wide road exists adjacent to the plot in question.
3. When the matter was listed on 24-11-98 prayer was ma
