JUDGMENT U.P. Singh, J. In this application the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order contained in Annexures-4 and 9 Annexures-4 is an order passed by the Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority dated 10.7.1987 and the Appellate Tribunal's order is contained in Annexure-9 dated 10.11.1987. 2. The Vice-Chairman P.R.D.A. has directed the opposite party to demolish the fresh structures made by the petitioner on the northern portion of his holding no. 84/82 in ward no. 28/24, circle no. 187 in Laloo Babu's Lane Patna City which was constructed without sanctioned plan and without leaving any setback. The Appellate Tribunal, although affirmed the order of the Vice-Chairman, but it proceeded on the sole basis that the petitioner had raised structure measuring 21' X 13', without a sanctioned plan, on the northern portion of the land. 3. The dispute was raised by one Shri Nand Kumar Rastogi who filed an application in August 1986 alleging that the petitioner was constructing a new house adjoining to his house without leaving 5' set back and without any sanctioned plan on the land described above. On receiving this complaint, it was sent for inquiry to the Executive Engineer, who submitted a report stating that the construction was going on without any sanctioned plan. On receipt of the said report a notice under section 30(1) of the P.R.D.A. Act was issued asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the construction be not started. Also a notice under section 54(1) of the said Act was issued asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the unauthorised construction be not demolished. The case was heard exparte and order of demolition was passed in December, 1986. The petitioner then preferred a writ application and this Court directed the Vice-Chairman to persue the show cause of the petitioner and pass the necessary order only after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner then filed the show cause before the Vice-Chairman and after hearing the parties he passed the above order contained in Anvexure-4, directing the petitioner to demolish the un-authorised construction. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and inter alia, contended that he had not made any new construction but carried the patch works repairs and alternations in the old existing building which had been purchased by him. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and inter alia, contended that he had not made any new construction but carried the patch works repairs and alternations in the old existing building which had been purchased by him. Therefore, no sanctioned plan was required for carrying the patch works, repairs and alterations in the old existing building. It was further contended that the petitioner bad purchased the half portion of the pucca double storeyed building existing on holding no. 82 measuring 4 kathas 19 dhurs by means of a registered sale deed executed by Smt. Rupwati Rahatogi in February, 1977. The definite assertion of the petitioner was that the motor garage and the rooms existing on the northern portion of the house purchased by the petitioner are adjacent to the house of Shri Nand Kumar Rohatagi (the intervenor respondents herein). He had annexed the sale deed of the property purchased by him along with the sketch map and the same formed part of the sale deed showing that the building was adjacent to the house of the said Shri Rohatogi. The sale deed shows that the petitioner had purchased not only a double storeyed building but also some open land attached with the building. The boundary of the building and the land purchased by the petitioner are also indicated in the sale deed and it shows that in the south as also in the east, there are roads of Patna Municipal Corporation and on west there is a lane of the municipal corporation. Thus, on three sides of the building and the land there are roads and land of the Municipal Corporation and to the north of the building is the house of Shri Rohatagi. 4. During inquiry, the Engineer found that a fresh construction was going on over an area of 21’ X 13’ on considering these facts, the Appellate Tribunal held that the petitioner had not got the plan sanctioned and had raised construction measuring 21' X 13' on the northern portion of the land. 5. The petitioner contended that his house is an old building which he had purchased along some vacant portion of the land. The old construction exists on the said land which had been made long ago by his vendor and he did, in fact, not make any new structure except some patch work, repairing etc. 5. The petitioner contended that his house is an old building which he had purchased along some vacant portion of the land. The old construction exists on the said land which had been made long ago by his vendor and he did, in fact, not make any new structure except some patch work, repairing etc. The alleged construction was in the interior portion of the building which did not materially affect the external appearance of the said building. The admitted position is that in the north eastern corner of the building there is a garage which is 21' east to west. On the west northern corner of the building there is an old constructed room measuring 20 ft. west to east. In between the garage situated in the north eastern portion and the room situated in the west northern portion there were two tin shaded rooms adjacent south to the building of Shri Rohatagi, which was existing since before and certain improvements and alterations was carried out over the same for which no prior sanction was required. 6. The question arises whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in view the petitioner's building, the question of leaving a 5ft set back could arise at all. Without going into the question, my attention has been drawn to the order of the Appellate Tribunal and since it has not proceeded on this ground of leaving a 5ft set back, I do not propose to enter into that question. Thus the only question on which the petitioner has lost his case before the Appellate Tribunal is that there was no sanctioned plan for the alleged construction over an area of land measuring 21' X 13' on the northern portion of the building. The petitioner's counsel has very fairly stated that although a sanctioned plan was not required in the facts of the present case, since it was in respect of a very old constructed building, even then, in accordance with the provisions contained in rule 9 of the Appendix-L of the Bye-Laws as amended by the order no. 75/87 P.R.D.A. dated 78.2.87, the petitioner will apply for the post facto sanction on conditions laid down in the Act. 75/87 P.R.D.A. dated 78.2.87, the petitioner will apply for the post facto sanction on conditions laid down in the Act. It is made clear that in the peculiar facts of this case the provision of set hack is not applicable, since undisputedly it is in relation to a very old existing building, which was subsequently purchased by this petitioner. 7. If the petitioner now applies for a post facto sanction of the building plan, the same shall be considered by the authority expeditiously under the Act in accordance with law and the alleged construction shall not be demolished. 8. This application is, accordingly, allowed with the directions indicated above. There will however, be no order as to costs.