B.N.P.Singh, J.

1. Scarce land and rising population, which made housing problem complex for teeming millions, aspiring to seek shelter in urban areas, has given rise to a new dimension to solution of this problem, known as Housing Complex or Multi-Storeyed Apartments. Paradox is that even though builders/ developers of such complexes may not have their own land for construction of complexes, yet they develop land, erect multi-storeyed buildings thereon and claim ownership thereof.

2. M/s. Saket Housing Ltd. through its Managing Director, the appellant, having lost CWJC No. 7904 of 2002 before a Bench of this court, has now chosen this forum for appeal, filing LPA No. 902 of 2003. Since manifold contentions were raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant and the respondents, salient features of the case of the parties can be noticed to appreciate them.

3. Since learned Single Judge in his judgment has set out in elaborate details all the relevant facts pertaining to reason and subsequent development of the case, it is not necessary for us to recapitulate in the judgment all these materials in full. However, we shall refer to certain salients features emerging from the pleadings of the parties and submissions made. Put up briefly the essential facts are these. On being approached by appellant Company, for construction of multi storeyed building, commercial and residential, on Municipal Plot No. 156 under Ward No. 2, Circle No. 6, Holding No. 128/95 in Patna, the respondent Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as PRDA) accorded sanction of building plan case No. 35 of 1998 on 31st July, 1998, known as "Santosh Complex" With certain terms and conditions which were conveyed to the appellant for construction of basement + Ground Floor + six floors with following specifications :-

-

(A) Set Back (i) Front - 7.5 mt. + 3.0 mt (Strip for r/w)= 10.50mt. for height 21.0 mt.

(ii) Rear - 3.60 mt. + 1.5 mt. (for r/w = 5.1 mt.) for height 21.0 mt.

(iii) Left - 6.0 mt.

(iv) Right - 6.0 mt. (0.05 to 0.35 mt. R/W)

(B) Built Up Area Basement - 44.25 sq. mt.

G.F. - 330.15 sq. mt.

1st floor- 764.75 sq. mt.

2nd floor - 764.75 sq. mt.

3rd floor - 764.75 sq. mt.

4th floor - 764.75 sq. mt.

5th floor - 764.75 sq. mt.

6th floor - 764.75 sq. mt.

(C) FAR - 2.99

(D) Height - 21 mt.3. In terms of the sanction, respondents sanctioned plan for construction of 24 flats on 1st floor to 6th floor. It, however, came to notice of the respondents PRDA, from report of Vigilance Cell that during construction of building in question, large scale deviations had been made from sanction plan and thereafter on submission of inspection report by Assistant Director, PRDA, holding appellant company responsible for substantial deviation for construction from sanction plan, a Vigilance Case bearing No. 11-A/2000 was instituted. During local inspection by the Vice- Chairman along with high officials of PRDA, measurement of construction in question was made in presence of representative of the appellant company, and finding gross violation of sanction plan, show cause had been issued against which a representation was filed in respect of (A) Set Back, (B) Balconies affecting Set Back, (C) Parking space, (D) Built UP Area and (E) Height of construction, in which while other deviations were sought to be justified on some excuses, the appellant company agreed to demolish 37 small cubicles, measuring 331.24 sq. mt. in basement. Though the representation of the appellant company to the extent that the area of left wall, fire escape, cut outs and ducts should be deleted from total built up area, found favour with the respondent PRDA, along with others, contention of the appellant that it was ready to seal the balcony area and not to leave it usable as additional built up area, was rejected.

4. The respondent PRDA on consideration of report of its officers and also representation of the appellant, found that while in respect of Set Back, it had enclosed b