P.R.D . A . while examining each case by ser.cJing its team to y ., r\ty !acts on the site of construction, m… — BIHAR ACT 40 or " 1982]1

-P.R.D . A . while examining each case by ser.cJing its team to y ., r\ty !acts on the site of construction, must permit the builder to carry on the oonslructlon, if it is found that building plan has been duly sanctioned in accordnnce with the bye laws and the rules and construction is also being carried out In accordance with the sanctioned plan . but in those cases where construction I! , not In accordance with sanctioned plan or where sanctioned plan has been obtained contrary to the relevant bye laws , rules etc . the authorities must stop ti\e builder from constructing any turther till he removes the offending part of the construction or modifies or corrects the sanctioned plan , so that they may be brought in accordance with the building bye laws .

Section 54-P.R.D . A . while examining each case by ser.cJing its team to y ., r\ty !acts on the site of construction, must permit the builder to carry on the oonslructlon, if it is found that building plan has been duly sanctioned in accordnnce with the bye laws and the rules and construction is also being carried out In accordance with the sanctioned plan . but in those cases where construction I! , not In accordance with sanctioned plan or where sanctioned plan has been obtained contrary to the relevant bye laws , rules etc . the authorities must stop ti\e builder from constructing any turther till he removes the offending part of the construction or modifies or corrects the sanctioned plan , so that they may be brought in accordance with the building bye laws . Bihar Regior:al Development Authority Act, 1981-Section 5~-ln cases where a builder seeks permission to resume construction and produces before the Vice -Chairman, PROA , the sanctioned plan, on ptim« tacie satisfaction the PROA may permit him to continue with the construction subject to the ultimate result after verfication of lhe building plan and actual construction work-if on final verification of the sanctioned plan ' and the actual construction work done , deviation is found the builder shall not object to the demolition of such structure on the mere ground that he was allowed to raise the construction provisionallyIn cases of compoundable deviation the PADA may exercise its discretion but in cases where the deviation is not compoundable, the PROA will direct the builder ~~ w~~-. (ii) kam Natt, Arore vs . State of Bihar (CWJC No. 7204/97) decided on 3 . 10.1997 (Reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 847 Civic Amernties -Widening of roads and lanes-Building constructed against validly sanctioned plan need not be disturbed. In such a case . tile au -thorities may initiate :c1.nd acquisition proceeding or with consent of the owner of the property get the required land for widening the road/lane. There is a clear distinction between tho buildings constructed in accordance with a: sanctioned plan and those constructed without it. The only thing the authority can do in a case I where a building was constructed on the basis of a sanctioned plan is to verify j whether or not in actuality the construction conformed with the sanctioned plan . A building claimed to have been constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan cannot be subjected to the rough and ready device 01 putting a mark on it and compelling tile demolition of the marked portion. In case rt is found. that the building is in accordance with tile sanctioned plan, the Authority must leave its owner in peace . • (vi) building and 1he land appertatnlnq theretoPetit'or- allowec.i--Orders passed accorclingly. [Constitution of India, Article 226 . Mis. Dornco (Pvt.) Ltd. d. v i , Ronci» Reaionst Development Aut/Jority, Ranchi, 2005(2} JCR 3 (Jhr) . -Sec·m:m$ 35 and 37-Unauthorised construction-Demolitlon oI . -1\pplication Ior sanction for construction of building filed-No document to show that t;·,e notice was actually sent and served on the applicant to rectify defects-No reasons recorded for rejecting the applicaiior and such refusal together wit It ri?n · sonsnot communicated to the petitioner-General notice puolished in newspaper rcga;ding demolition of buildings constructed without sanction-Vice-Ct · airman failed to exercise his statutory duty while rejecting the application-There is total nonapplication of mind by the Vice-Chairman. Heid : The Vice-Chairman is required to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 37 oi the said Act , reputations and bye-laws for the time being in force in the matter of disposal of app1ications for grant of sanction . The Vlco-Ohairrnan is not supposed to exercise his discretion on the basis of executive instructions unless the provisions, regulations and bye-laws aro amended or modified. The Vieu-chairman must boar m n , ind that ho is exercising statutory duty conferred upon him while dealing with the appiication for grant of sanction of plan for construction of builjing. 1/yas MuniBupta vs . Ranchi Rogior:al Devoiopment Auttiorlty; 2002 (1) JCFl 270 (Jhr) . se~~ti<.ms 35 and 37 -Sar.ction of constructlon oi . . ouHding--Vice Chairma:;;',; ref1.1sal lo sar.clion-Brief statement staling reasons forr such refusal c.:1-.c corr-munlcatlon of H1e refusal to person concerned necessary . -lf no order passed within 4 months from the date of application and no refusal is corrmunicated t p person concerned to givo notice regarding presumed sanction if contrary i:; not received or notified within 30 days from the date or receipt of notice. If the ViceChalrman refuses to accord sanction , t-ie shall record a brief statement of his reasons for such refusal and communicate the refusal ;:.dong witn the reasons thereof to n , e person concerned . Sub -section (5) of Section ::!7 further provides ~hat if no order in vvl'iting is passed by the Vice-Chairman within a period of 4 months from the date of the application and no refusal is communicated to the person concerned then the person concerned or applicant shall give a notice under registered post intimating tnat sanction shall be presumed if nothing , to the contrary, is received or notified within 30 days from the date of receipt. Vyas Muni Gupta vs . Ranchi Roqioru: Dove/opment Authority, 2002('1) JCR 270 (Jhr) . --£ecilorn 38 -Agreement to selt=-Does not create any interest in the prop · erty-··-Such right can be enforced only by filing a regular suit for specific perform ance of contract. Harjindor Singh Choudhary vs . Rencni Regional Development 2005 (2) JCR 200 (~lhr) . -Zecv.lon 38 -Buiiding Plan-:cancslllng the sanction ot-Substantialit ~ of -No notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing given before passing thE order-violation of mandatory requiroment=-Ordor of cancellation of sanction can not be sustained in law . Harijinder Singh Choudhary vs. Ra"nchi Regional Develop ment Authority, 2004 , 2004(1) JCR 58 (Jll:-) . -Sseiior. 3l-S ~ nctioned p!an-Gancellation or.-Wilhout giving notice Ir show cause OJ opportuni!y of hearing to the person in whoso favour plan was sane cioned-f\lot proper-Order of cancellation quashed . ,.._ . .. / . /arjinder Singh Choudhary vi Bench Regional Dovelopment, t, 2005 (2) JCR 200 (Jhr).