1. The chequered history of this case is almost 32 years old. On 6.1.1970 vide Resolution No. 14/70 the appellant Patna Regional Development Authority (in short the PRDA) resolved to settle certain parts of land abutting the houses mentioned therein with the lessees/owners of the houses. The land in dispute admeasuring 0.83 katha situate by the side of House No. M-3/23. On 3.3.1970 Rewati Mohan Mishra, the father of the petitioners, a lessee of the above referred house was offered the land for Rs. 2463 @ Rs. 3760 per katha. It appears that the petitioners father was reluctant because the land was under encroachment and delivery of actual physical possession was not possible, However, the said Rewati Mohan Mishra moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1393 of 1982 which was disposed of in terms of a consent order. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

(1) The Patna Regional Development Authority be directed to have all the encroachments removed over the disputed piece/parcel of land measuring about 0.83 katha equivalent to 1130 sq. ft. adjacent to Flat No. M-3/23 in Mohalla Shrikrishnapuri (Patna) by whom so ever the encroachments may have been made, either by the petitioner or respondents 5, 6, and 7 of any other party, as it is the legal duty of the interest of the public at large and, especially the petitioner, who is the adjacent flat-holder;

(2) The Authority must take steps and have such encroachments removed within a period of three months from today whatever the nature of encroachments; be that safety tanks, structures, barbed wire fencing of anything; and

(3) It will be open to the petitioner or any other party then to apply, in accordance with law, to the Authority to have the vacant plot aforementioned settled with him/her, which shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

2. The said petition was disposed of on 16.8.1988. From the said observations it would appear that the PRDA was required to remove the encroachment whatever type it was and said Rewati Mohan Mishra was given liberty to apply to the authority in accordance with law to have the vacant plot settled with him and the authority was required to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

3. From Annexure-3 it would appear that between 12.6.1989 to 29.6.1989 proposal for construction for the road was considered. The authority was of the opinion that the lay out did not provide for a road but, however, if the road is required to be constructed then the land may be got vacated. The different departments were of the opinion that the road construction was not possible. Thereafter the Vice Chairman, PRDA informed the Secretary, Urban Development Department that construction of the road on the land in dispute was not expedient or in public interest. The question was also raised on the August floor of the Assembly. The Minister Incharge and the Secretary of the Department also endorsed the said opinion.

4. It appears that in the meantime the petitioners father again came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1862 of 1991. The Counsel for the PRDA informed the Court that after the land is freed from encroachment a road would be constructed. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted in the said matter that the feasibility of construction of road was examined by the authorities and according to the report submitted by them, the construction of the road was not feasible. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said C.W.J.C. No. 1862/91 vide its judgment dated 15.4.1991 observed that the land was lying unused for almost about 25 years to advantage of none. The High Court directed the PRDA that if it wants to make a road then it must complete the construction within six months from the date of the judgment and in case it is not so done within one month thereafter the PRDA shall settle the land on the current price in favour of the petitioner. It appears that despite directions of this Court the road was not constructed nor the land was settled