Oi"Dlerr o'i cleiY!o!i~ion oi loui!ding.-(1) Where any development or erection of a building has been commenc… — BIHAR ACT 40 or " 1982]1

. Oi"Dlerr o'i cleiY!o!i~ion oi loui!ding.-(1) Where any development or erection of a building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention ot · :he Regional Plan, Masler Plan or Zonal Developmeni Plan or without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in sections 35 , 35, 37 or in contravention of any conditions subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted, any" officer of the Authority empow-

54 . Oi"Dlerr o'i cleiY!o!i~ion oi loui!ding.-(1) Where any development or erection of a building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention ot · :he Regional Plan, Masler Plan or Zonal Developmeni Plan or without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in sections 35 , 35, 37 or in contravention of any conditions subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted, any" officer of the Authority empow- <=>rArl h11 i~ in i·hi.~ hPh;:ilt m::111 in ;:irlrlitirm 'lo nm~Ar.1ition fh;:it mav hP in.c::iii'll'i'Arl ur.dct thi~ Act . make an order briefly f.ic1tiny the reasons !1 , erefor directing that c;t:ch erection or deveioprnent work shall be removed by demolition, filling or oth erwis<-> ov the -owner ii rereof or by the person at whose i, · ,stance tho ercc.t , ori or ,1evG!onment work nae been commenced or is heing carried out or has been ,:;,::i, , ,p!cied within a oeriod of thirty days from the date o t which a copy of tile order of removal has been delivered to lhe owner or that . psrson as may be specified in !he . order , and on his failure io comply wtth the order , ;my officer of 1he ,1\utho1ity may remove or cause to be removed the €rection or development work ar.d lhe expenses of such ! removal sha]] be recovered from the owner or !he person he expens ,,! whoso instance the erection or dovelopme-u was r.omrnenced or wc1s being carried Qui or was completed , as arrears of land revenue : Provided that no such order shall be made unless t!,P owner or the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the order should not be made . · / . , .ny person aggrieved by an order under sue-section (1) may appeal lo 2. Tribu! , 81 constnuted under this Act against that order within thirty- days from the Gale thersot: und the Tribunal may after hearinq the parties to the appeal either :if!ow or c'rsrruss the appeal or reverse or vary the order or any par' thereof . (3; The decision ·of the Tribunal on the appeal and subject only to such ,:leGision U1e order under sub-section (i) shaf be final and conclusive . {4) The provisions of ihis section s~all be in -'lc'.dition to and not in deroqaf;on of 2n:i.' other provisions rel2ting to demolition ot ~uildings contained in any ,:':'.1,;;~ :2'.N for ths imr,i being in force . Comments 2 cas~·l2w l{Votice-P. P. ien;:n, of the building does not come within lhe purvlsw of the e,n::>ressior. "ownei or person concerned " to whom notice under section 54 is required to be given before an order under section 54 is passed. Moreover , where !~ie teicvunt statutory provisions warrant the exclusion of requirement of orio; no-" ice and/or opporturuty of hearing the Legislature can provide for their exclusion . ~inly the owner a1 ·,d Builder of an illegal structure which is sought lo be demol:shed may raise objection and put forward such pleas as may be available in law . i~ privats contract between the tenant and the landlord cannot override the s!awlory provisions which justify order of demolition in the k::rgc; public interest in certain cases. Sri!rrishnapuri Boring Hoed Vyapari San9h vs . State of Bihsr, ·i995 (1) P!....JR 418 ,)::imoJi~ion.-An order of dernotition of cxistinq structure cannot be said to bs sostalnable where the impugned order had been passed on the ground that t!ic structure was unauthorised but the notice in terms of sub -section (i) of section o4 had bse: , served on a person who was neither the owner nor the person recorded as the !ax payer of the holding on which the altege!y unauthorised si.ucturo had been constructed, in the records of the Municipal Corporation . Order being, ill&gal is liqble to be quashed: However, High Court gave liberty to PROA :0 i·11iiate a fresh proceeding and proceed in the matter a;ter proper service of notice in ierms of proviso to section 54 (1). Shyamrist1i Singh vs . State ot Biner, r, :095 (2) PLJR 39 . . ·· .. ~~·;.-.n., ~Q .::inrJ 54 read witi , Rule 9 of Appendix-I, of the .. _ ...... u...---.rtcu"i r Patch-work. repair or alteration done in 01c rxlstinq bu,lding cannot be saic ' lo materially affect the external appearar-: 01 -uch a builrling . The requiromsr-' of "set-back " is not applicable 1'1 case of houses built prior lo enactment of la ,-·2 prescribing such reouiremsnt r; ts »roper that post facto sanction of th ~ Juild ing plan be considered by ths concerned Authority. 8udhist Kumar Pumev vs , Patna Regional Development 1'11thori:y, 1991 (2) Pl.JR 398 . Action under section 54 for demolition can tie iaken even if a building )Ian had received sanction or deemed sanction if the buiklinq plan is no! in contormity with the Draft Master Plan or the Master Pinn. Srikrishnapuri Baring Hoea Vyapari Sangh vs. State of Bihar, 1995 (i) PUR 418. The prlnciple or waiver connotes issuance ot notice :.:nci non-response there to . A person who does not make any representation inii1ally on issuance of notice cannot be permitted to turn around, after a Development Scheme reaches finality, as it would amount to putting premium on dilatory and dishonest conduct. Jsswent Singh Mathura Singh vs . Ahmedabad Municipal Cotponuion, 1992 Supp (1) sec s. The notice contemplated in section 54 is required to be issued only 10 ·ihc owner and not to the tenants occupying tho building , as they bad no role to play in the erection of the offending structures. Only the owner is liable to be prosecuted for the illeg?! structure. The term owner also includes "the person concerned for purposes of issue of notice under section 54-. The doctrine oJ reason· able expectation has no application as a private contract between landlord and tenant cannot override the statutory provisions providing for demolition oi mega! structures . Sri Krisbnsptui, Boring Road , Vyapari Sangh vs . 8tate of 3ihar, ·1995 ('1) PLJR 418. Under sub-section (2) ot Section 54 , any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section 1) of section 54 , may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal const ituted under the Act within thirty days from the date o'. the order. The :ribur.a may after hearing the parties either allow or dismiss ihe appeal or reverse 01 vary the order or any part thereof. However . once the order of tho PROA ha;, attained finality , the PROA must give effect to its own earlier order for rer"tova of encroachment from public land. Suroma Pal vs. Patna Regional Deveiopmen Authority. " 994 (2) PLJR 672 . The High Court deprecated the failure of PROA authorities to give efft::ici i, its earlier order for demolition of unauthorised construction over public l "' . ,c~. Th< High Court also i:c sued a writ of mandamus commanding PROA to give eftec to its own earlier order. ibid. Demolilior . ·Whore unauthorised constructions are demolished on ,he fore, of the order of Courts, the illegality is not taken care ot fully inasmuch as !h , officers of the statutory body who bad allowed the unauthorised construclio be made or mal<e illegal allotments should not be allowed to go scot-free . Officers must be punished in accordance with law. Or. G . N. Khajuria vs . .'Je/J Development Auth, vity; {1995) 5 sec 762 !:1wiromne1r1t. -Where a large hotel had beon constructed without props approval of " buildin(· plan " being obtained, and later application of hole: owcor fc exemption from operation of statutory restrictions allowed at the Chief Minister ' level after overruling the recommendations of the statutory authorities , the 1 -!ig Court may strike down lhe grant of exemption as being arbitrary and ciroct dernc litinn nf unauthorised construction . Supreme Court declined to . interfere with Hir , Pleasant Gour:·s order in e ..x e ..x e .xercise of power under Arucls ms of the Constilution . Stc1\f Hotel vs . Palani f-Jif/s Conservation Council, l, 1996. (1) PLJR 24 ' (SC). Before demofition PRO/\ is to issue general notice to the house owners o· 1112 area where ii proposes . to Increase the width of the road .. After notice a fi"l0i,surement has to be dcne and title deeds , maps etc . s tc be verifiev,(the presence of the party concerned. Pral<ash Kumar Singh v:,. State of Bif)c,r, 1997 (1j ?L.JR 21