PRDA had no authority to widen roads without land acquisition proceedings.

1. The petitioners Cooperative Society is a Cooperative Society of residents residing in what is commonly known as Lokpriya Apartments in the locality commonly referred to as Vivekanand Parking Area of Patna. The multi-storeyed building plan was submitted and was duly sanctioned by the PRDA. In the sanction plan which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and has been compared with the original from the records of the PRDA by this Court and found to be the same, there is no dispute that the front set back of the building had to be three meters and there was a road of six meters in the front. The building, it was alleged by the petitioners, was in fact constructed leaving a front set back of more than three meters notwithstanding the road being still six meters. Once the building became habitable, a six feet height boundary wall was made which also let six meters road and, as indicated above, a front set back of more than six meters as sanctioned. The petitioners case is that all of a sudden on 14.9.2001, some officials of the PRDA came and put red mark on the boundary wall of the petitioners Apartment stating that the said boundary wall was an encroachment and had to be demolished. Petitioners immediately objected. They filed applications before the Vice-Chancellor of PRDA but without any proceedings known to them or without hearing them on 22.7.2002, officials of PRDA suddenly turned up with bulldozers and cranes and demolished the six feet height boundary wall measuring 13.92 meters east to west. This exposed the petitioners. Petitioners were told that the boundary wall was an encroachment and that was all. This action of the respondents have brought the petitioners to this Court.

2. First, a counter affidavit was filed in this Court on or about 26.7.2007 wherein the Assistant Engineer of the dissolved PRDA Shri Dilip Kumar Singh has sworn on behalf of respondents that as per the plan sanctioned, there had to be a six meter road in front of the Apartment but it was found to be only fifteen feet that is less than six meters in front. As such, in order to maintain and ensure free flow of traffic, it was an encroachment. It was, thus, demolished. It was a major deviation from sanctioned plan of the petitioners by the petitioners. It was also asserted that in two sets of writ petitions, one presumably the famous/infamous Arun Mukherjees case and the other in relation to some of the neighbours of petitioners (petitioners not being parties), some orders were passed to ensure twenty feet wide road and demolish encroachments. This was by way of justification of making the road six meters. This Court, by order dated 26.7.2007 noticing the aforesaid stand, directed the respondents to file any measurement done to ascertain the actual possession before taking action for demolition. By subsequent order, this Court also directed the respondents to disclose the names of the persons who had authorized the demolition and conducted the demolition. This was in view of the measurement filed by PRDA as Annexure-B to their second counter affidavit. A reference to the said measurement as supplied by PRDA itself is a tacit admission by PRDA of their wrongful and illegal action in fact or mala fide action in fact if I may say so. Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the erstwhile PRDA would show that as against a front set back of three meters, the petitioners Apartment had a front set back of 3.09 meters to 3.22 meters. Therefore, the front set back was more than what was required to be left. This could not be in violation of any law rather it was in addition to the minimum that they had left. Next if we see the measurement of the road, it would be seen that the petitioners boundary wall was straight. On almost half of the site along the boundary wall from the east, the road is in fact not six meters but varying between 6.20 meters to 6.32 meters. At the beginning of petitioners plot, the adjacent plot owner has cut the stra