t,"' orcer 0: demolition given after firinl verification of sanctioned pian and cie-11.::-;fon founc' in the… — BIHAR ACT 40 or " 1982]1

t,"' orcer 0: demolition given after firinl verification of sanctioned pian and cie-11.::-;fon founc' in the actual construction work done . Builders arc not to obioct !O ihe de'Tlolition of such structure on the mere ground that the b1Jilding was 2llo1Ned to be constructed provisionally. Arun Kumar Mukiwrjee vs . Stale ot EJi/721: 199: 1 (1) PLJR 369 .

1 t,"' orcer 0: demolition given after firinl verification of sanctioned pian and cie-11.::-;fon founc' in the actual construction work done . Builders arc not to obioct !O ihe de'Tlolition of such structure on the mere ground that the b1Jilding was 2llo1Ned to be constructed provisionally. Arun Kumar Mukiwrjee vs . Stale ot EJi/721: 199: 1 (1) PLJR 369 . In cases ot cu npouncanle deviation in const uclior from the sanctioned , na!:i tno PROA rnav exercise its discretion but in cases where the deviation is not compoundable .·,e PROA will not direct t~e builder rot ·o construct. Awn Kumer ll!wki'wrjce vs . State of Bihar, 1997 (1) PLJR 359 ,\ tenant has no locus stendi to raise an objeciior . of a demoliticn 0'1 a :x1ilciirig b'Jii1 or- a non sanctioned plan . Only those tenant can raise objection · ,'l,gains'c demolition wherein the construction has been done urtder the sanctioned :>fan or v, , ;1ore th,:; c v,strution has been made by due permission .. Sisir Kumar . J2in· vs . P.C{OA, 'l 99L {3) PLJR 676 . . Dernoiition of boundary wall has been done without qiv'ns proper arc prior :-,ot:-:;.s:.if hearinJ . Sqch action of the authority is against ttJe , aw . Appropriate writ i.t:sued dirocti11g the i' auihorities to construct and repair the ::>illc._75 and tho boundary walls g or ;:i,,:' co,s . of construction along witl , compensation for the mental pain and agony suncred by the petitioner .. Permottem Pd. d. Singh vs . State of Bi!1a1; '1999 ( ! ) PUP 708 .. T!10 authorities are to remove t11e illegal construction where ,:,e cwna does . ;,o2 remove the same .. The owners are not liable for any compensation fo~ such dernoiiiion . Patna Bnsoct) AG Oiiice Housing Co-Opt. Society vs . State of Bihar, ·1999 (1) PLJr-l 71 · 1. There is 2 dirt.ronce between a house constructed without a sanctioned plan and one constructed after obtaining sanction . This section empowers for demolition or 2. building built without permission . approval or sanction of '.he authorities . The provision do not empowers the authori.y lo divest the owners ot his ·m:e to the land. fhe order of the authorities to the owners to surrender strips · ' of !ancl is without jurisdiction . Gauri Shankar Verma vs. State of Bihar, 1999 (3) PLJR 8i9 . . The direction o; the authorities to the tenants/shopkeepers lo remove their b8iongings within 72 hours in · a case of demolition can no: be applied with ln case of owners. Monen Kumer Singh vs. State of Bihar, r, 2000 (3) ?LIR 243 . i.!\iilern the authorities or any other statutory bodies wish to wide1 ·1a lane '.hi:: m1ly course open are either to persuade the owner to voluntary surrender or .:;cq'..li:·e ,he necessary strips of land or on payment of compensation in accordsnce w;lh law .. Manorama Devi vs. State of Bihar, 2000 (i) PLJR 170. iVi<=>mh1 rnil1ino red mark on H1e buildinq bv the authorities can not be said r not mere a formality its object is to rnake the person aware about action to be taken . IV/ohan Kumar Singh vs. State of Biner; 2000(3) PLJR 243 Putiing of the red mark on the buildin~ about three years ago and g;v;ng no opportunity to oxpla '1, action taken holds no rneaninq in :he eyes of !avv. Mohall Kumar Singh vs. Srate of Bihar; 2000 (3) PLJR 24.3 . -where the 'louse has been constructed on the basis of a duly sa , :ctioned plan , it cannot be demolished even if it is situate on a road or lane of width less than 2011 . --Authority if they wish to widen such lane have ei\11er to get land from the owner by his volunteer surrender or resort to acquisition oy paying compensationno forcible demolition permissible. Smt. Manorama Devi vs. State of Bihar, 2000 ("I) PLJR , HO. -a tenant cannot claim hoarinq by the authority before passing order of demolition 1J/s 54. vivek Arora vs. Patna Regional Development Authority, 200· , (2) PLJR 798 -building pla,1 sanctioned in which existing structure shown in set back -eJdstin!J structure in the occupancy of tenant who were knowing about the plan -demolition order of such portion is valid and . cannot betermed as a pica to evict the tenant bypassing the B . B.C. Act. Vivek /vora trs. Patna Regional Development Authority, 200i (2) PLJR 798. -Authority is a creature of the statute -ii has a legal obligation 10 perform certain functions specified i.n the Act , but those functions must be performed in the manner laid down in the ~ . ct and al! its action must, theratore , conform to the provisions of the Act and it is not free to act beyond the parameters of the statute and in a manner not sanctioned by the statute . Smt. t. Sudha Devi vs . State of Bihar, 2002 ( 4) PLJR 278 -a person who is strictly aggrieved · within. the moaning of this section , can only seek remedy-petitioner ' s house not adjacent but separated by 4-5 houses held not aggrieved . Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Patna Regional Oev.Aufhority,2002 (3) PLJR , 80i -claim that demolition taken up on Fraser Road on the .basis of court's order dt. "17.7.2002 in Arun Kumar Mulcherjee ' s case -directions in the Court's order 'nowhere gave .sanction to the Authority to act in a completely lawless manner for the removal of unautliorised constructions -Authority lhemselves gave assurance to the court in that case that they will start removal of unauthorised constructions itself and they will proceed with the matter within tour daystheir assurance and court's direction do not even hint that the Authority was free not to follow the .procedure prescribed by the law and to act in a manner as it pleases. smr. Sudha Devi vs . State of Bibet, 2002 (4) PLJR 273 -notice published in the newspaper fo<ing the very next day and time for the . owners of the buildings on Fraser Road to keep ready tne maps sanctioned for inspection and those not complying or not having sanctioned plans it would be presumed that their structures arc unauthorised and action · would be taken to remove them -such an action of the Authority does not conform to the provisions of Section 54 -no reasonable opportunity to show cause is given--no order in writing under subsection (i) of . section 54 passed nor period of thirty days lo take, the order in appeal given --"7" " a reasonable opportunity to show --· · ---11 : ....... _;_ ..... ....,..,,.... ..... ,....,,... ,...... ~ ""'~ ,., '"'r!Av ~f r11n'V"\tJ·:..t I rl.arnnli1i~n 11/c: ~A /il \nrhi'rh naturally Include a proper notice to the concerned person uh , 67 a general notice does not ineei the requirement u/s 54 as per which a proceeding r,an be initiated on tho basis ot ;i notice addressed to ihe conc-r-ied individual owner ' occupiec- ll 1erefo;e , a public notice cannot be said to be an effective substitute for an individual notice=- however, instantly even the statutory provision «, I suance of a public notice (u/s 68) (for other matters mid not for a procr ,~ditt , vle 54) wz.s not properly complied with. Smt. Sudha 00111 vs . State of 1har. r. 2002 (4) PLlR . 218

Section 1