JUDGMENT : S. Shamsul Hasan, J.–The petitioners in this application being irked by the establishment of the respondent-society being respondent no.5, have been seeking succour from the court of justice under Article 226 of the Constitution. Their original foray to this Court ended in failure at our hands, thus, leading them to seek their reliefs under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from the highest Court of the land, the Supreme Court. When the matter was taken up for hearing after grant of leave, a consent ORDER :was passed by which the JUDGMENT : of this Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to this Court "so that the High Court should ascertain whether the lay out of the plots allotted in favour of respondents 5 to 29 is in accordance with the Master Plan of September 1961 of Patna, as amended from time to time in accordance with law". (Inverted commas are mine). It was further directed that any construction made by the Society or the other respondents will be subject to the final result of the writ petition in the High Court. The main issues to be examined by us, in the light of the direction of the Supreme Court are, therefore, as follows :– (i) The Master plan of the area has to be first ascertained; - (ii) It has to be discovered, if any amendment has been made to the Master Plan; and (iii) If the alignments of roads and layout of other areas of the Master Plan, are affected by any or all the plots allotted to any of the respondents, mentioned above, i.e. respondents 5 to 29 ? 2. Taking up the points cumulatively, the Master Plan, as stands, is undisputed and contains the desire of the patna improvement Trust, the authority at the time the Master Plan was brought into existence, and now the P.R.D.A., proposed to do in its ambition to make Patna a more attractive city developed on scientific line keeping in mind the environmental and natural requirements of a city. This plan, as it appears from the preface, had a limited life span and, thus, appeared to have lost its force after the expiry of the period fixed by the Government. What was missed in the earlier JUDGMENT : was the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981. This plan, as it appears from the preface, had a limited life span and, thus, appeared to have lost its force after the expiry of the period fixed by the Government. What was missed in the earlier JUDGMENT : was the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981. For the remiss I take the fullest responsibility, though it was caused because our attention was not drawn to this section. According to this provision the Plan after the period fixed for its span of life would be deemed to be in existence till another Master Plan is passed or the present one is altered and modified. Except for the submission of the petitioners based on map nos. 26 and 29 there was nothing to show that the Master Plan, as it originally stood, has been amended, altered or changed. I, therefore, correct my earlier finding and hold that the Master Plan is operational. One aspect, however, cannot be ignored and it is worthy to notice that the pious desire of the creater of the Master Plan has floundered on the rocks of unplanned development based on factors inexplicable. Relevant sections of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (Act 40 of 1982) that apply to the factual situations in this application are section 17, sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act. According to these provisions the Master Plan has been kept alive even after the date of its expiry by efflux of time and by the subsequent provision, procedures for the formulation of a Master Plan and its subsequent alterations and amendments have been laid down. 3. The stand of the respondents-private and officials including the Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.R.D.A.') and the State was that there was no amendment to the Master Plan in accordance with the manner prescribed in law and set out above. The petitioners, however, relied on two maps being described as map no. 26 and map no. 29. These maps ex facie do not appear to be maps prepared in accordance with law and cannot be said to be maps that can be described as amended form of Master Plan. The petitioners, however, relied on two maps being described as map no. 26 and map no. 29. These maps ex facie do not appear to be maps prepared in accordance with law and cannot be said to be maps that can be described as amended form of Master Plan. No material was placed by the petitioners to show that the maps relied upon by them as amendments to the Master Plan nor any other material was brought on the record to indicate that the Master Plan was amended. 4. The map filed on behalf of the respondents, which is the photostat copy of appropriate portion of the Master Plan, clearly indicates a road, which according to the petitioners, has been encroached upon. It will be relevant now to state the claim of the petitioners, particularly of petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who were really the vociferous parties before us in this dispute. The first grievance is that the colony, respondent no. 5, has encroached upon the proposed 60 feet road shown in the Master Plan and, the second grievance is that this colony has also encroached upon the proposed 100 feet road, which cuts across 60 feet road on which petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have their houses, indicated in map no. 29. According to the respondents the 100 feet proposed road was no part of the Master Plan nor was it in any subsequent amendment of the said plan. In regard to the 60 feet road the stand of the respondents is that the colony has not affected any encroachment on 60 feet road, and this road passes close to the colony without any obstruction, as indicated in the map produced by them, and according to the P.R.D.A. the technical report, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this petition, made at the time when the layout of this colony was being examined and processed, clearly stated that this respondent-colony did not encroach upon 60 feet road, which was at least 100 feet north of this Colony. 5. Needless to say that the correctness of this report has been assailed by the petitioners. In regard to the 100 feet road nothing more need be said because I have held that map no. 29 as well as 26 is not a map that could be attributed the description of being an amendment to the Master Plan. 5. Needless to say that the correctness of this report has been assailed by the petitioners. In regard to the 100 feet road nothing more need be said because I have held that map no. 29 as well as 26 is not a map that could be attributed the description of being an amendment to the Master Plan. Coming to the 60 feet road in the light of the pleading and the claim of the parties, it seems that it has become a disputed question of fact, defying all efforts of this Court to obtain a solution, which is within the narrow scope of this application. 6. We have, therefore, to seek an alternative and the only solution I feel most convenient is that the location of the 60 feet road may be ascertained afresh by getting the physical situation clarified by measuring the entire area to secure the correct picture of the alignment of the 60 feet road. This could only be done by a Committee of Technical Experts, who would be more adequately equipped to ascertain the real state of affairs from the factual and legal angle. The result of the inquiry will have two effects (i) if the colony, respondent no. 5, does not encroach upon the 60 feet road, nothing more is required to be done, and (ii) the claim of the petitioners would be entirely untenable. If, however, the proposed 60 feet road bas been encroached upon, then two aspects have to be considered and implemented by the P. R. D. A., either to direct that the lay out of the respondent-colony be so altered or so changed that the proposed construction of the road is not obstructed which may include the removal of the plot actually covering the road. If, however, as things stand, the construction of the proposed toad has become entirely unfeasible by efflux of time and earlier authorised constructions in other parts of the road, then the P. R. D. A. should ensure that the right of petitioner no. 2 of ingress and egress to her garage is not affected and suitable arrangement be made to ensure the exercise of that right by petitioner no. 2. I may state that learned counsel made a grievance relating to the obstruction caused to petitioner no. 2 by, according to him, blocking of the entry to the garage. 2 of ingress and egress to her garage is not affected and suitable arrangement be made to ensure the exercise of that right by petitioner no. 2. I may state that learned counsel made a grievance relating to the obstruction caused to petitioner no. 2 by, according to him, blocking of the entry to the garage. In regard to the other petitioners the 60 feet road does not touch their plots in any manner. 7. Before concluding, I may again reiterate that any other problem arising out of the non-performance of the requirements of the Act and the Rules regarding construction of houses will be strictly en forded by the P. R. D. A. so that the right of the petitioners is not affected by any illegality in the construction by respondents 6 to 29. 8. Concluding, therefore, I direct that a Committee consisting of the Chief Engineer, P. R. D. A. as Chairman-Convenor, or any one performing his duty, in case his post is vacant, and two Engineers above the rank of the Executive Engineers nominated by the petitioners jointly and the respondents jointly at their own costs, will form themselves into a Committee to measure the area scientifically and as directed above, and give their findings to the Board in regard to these situations spelt out by me above. The nomination must be made by the petitioners and the respondents within two weeks from today, which nomination should be sent to the Chairman-cum convenor, who should undertake to complete the measurement and furnish the report on the lines directed by me above within four months from today. If either party fails to nominate his representative within the period specified, the Committee should proceed with their nominees and dispose of matter within the stipulated time. The recommendation of the Committee should be implemented by the P. R. D. A. forthwith. 9. In the result, the application is allowed to the extent, indicated above, but without costs. Application allowed to the extent indicated above. Hari Lal Agrawal, J.–I agree.