Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The sole petitioner is the owner of the building standing on a piece of land, 1748 sq. ft. in area, being part of plot No.644 within Ward No.2 of the Patna municipal Corporation and situate at frazer Road, Patna. The building which is used for running a shop under the name of d. Lal and Sons has its frontage on the Frazer Road and adjacent north to it there is a narrow lane starting from Frazer Road and running towards east for 150 yards before coming to a dead end. 2. According to the petitioners case after purchasing the land in 1957, the vendee got the building plan sanctioned by the Patna Municipal Corporation in 1957 and also obtained the necessary permission for construction from the Patna Improvement Trust. Copies of the relevant extracts from the sanction order granted by the Corporation and the permission for construction given by the Patna Improvement Trust are enclosed as Annexures 2 and 3. It is asserted in the writ petition that the construction of the building was started in 1958 and it was completed in 1959 in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Patna Regional Dev. Authority (the Authority, hereinafter)is at present engaged in the removal of unauthorised constructions and widening of roads/lanes to eliminate congestion and to ensure a free flow of traffic. The lane lying adjacent north to the petitioners building (the lane, hereinafter) has also come under the authoritys lane widening operations and in order to widen the lane atleast to an extent of 20, the Authority proposes to demolish portions of the buildings/structures on its either side and to make the owners of the lands on either side of the lane agree to part with strips of their lands to be amalgamated with the lane. With this object portions of buildings/structures on either side of the lane were marked by the Authority indicating the extent to which those buildings/structures were required to be demolished. The markings put, on the petitioners building indicated that the building was required to be demolished to an extentof 28" on its northern side. With this object portions of buildings/structures on either side of the lane were marked by the Authority indicating the extent to which those buildings/structures were required to be demolished. The markings put, on the petitioners building indicated that the building was required to be demolished to an extentof 28" on its northern side. Following the putting up of the marks announcement was made on the public address system requiring the owners of the buildings to voluntarily demolish their buildings to the extent indicated within a specified time failing which the buildings would be forcibly demolished by the Authority. 4. The threat of this forcible demolition has led the petitioner to come to this Court seeking certain directions restraining the Authority from forcibly demolishing the building or otherwise causing any damage to it. 5. According to the petitioner the lane is a private lane and it came into existence by the ex-landlord carving out a strip from his land for the common use of the different vendees to whom he sold a large block of land in small parcels. On the strip of land left by the previous land owner, a road was constructed and provision was made for drainage etc. by the owners of the buildings on either side of it, including the petitioner. The lane was never maintained by the Patna Municipal corporation or the Authority. It was further stated that the lane was neither a public street within the meaning of the Patna municipal Corporation Act nor public lane within the meaning of the Public land Encroachment Act. It was, therefore, contended that the Authority had no manner of concern with the lane and had no legal authority to widen it by causing forcible demolition of buildings on its either side. 6. According to the Authority it was acting simply in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court. It was stated on behalf of the Authority that the lane was no more than 15 in width and the buildings on either side of the lane housed shops, restaurants and eating houses. There was even a hotel being run in a multi-storeyed building inside the lane. The business activities being carried on from the premises inside the lane were of a nature attracting movement of a large number of people at all times. This led to great congestion in the narrow lane causing much inconvenience to all concerned. There was even a hotel being run in a multi-storeyed building inside the lane. The business activities being carried on from the premises inside the lane were of a nature attracting movement of a large number of people at all times. This led to great congestion in the narrow lane causing much inconvenience to all concerned. The widening of the lane according to the Authority was, therefore, of utmost importance. 7. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh in support of his submission that the authority was merely acting on the directions of this Court brought to my notice certain orders passed by a bench of this Court; the following order (dated 28-2-1997) was passed in Damyanti Devi v. State of Bihar and others, C. W. J. C. No.1237 of 1997 : "the petitioner makes a grievance that the Patna Regional Development authority is compelling her to give more space for road when she has already contributed about ten to twelve feet for the road. According to her, occupants of the houses opposite to her land should also be required to make equal. contribution. Counsel for the Patna Regional Development Authority submits that all these houses have been built without sanctioned plan and, therefore, there is a justification for demolition of the houses under the Act. However, if the occupants of such houses submit plan for approval, the Patna Regional Development Authority may consider such plan if the houses are constructed on a road having width of 20 ft. as approved in the Master Plan. With a view to save the houses of persons like the petitioner the Patna Regional Development authority will require them to make available a road of 20 ft. width. He submits that the owners of the houses on both sides of the road are required to make equal contribution for the road. " "in those circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of on the assurance given by the petitioner that she will give up 10 ft. land purchased by her for the purpose of road. The Patna Regional development Authority will require the occupants of the houses opposite to the land of the petitioner to make a similar contribution for the road, failing which it may take steps for demolition of the houses which had been constructed without any sanctioned plan. " 8. land purchased by her for the purpose of road. The Patna Regional development Authority will require the occupants of the houses opposite to the land of the petitioner to make a similar contribution for the road, failing which it may take steps for demolition of the houses which had been constructed without any sanctioned plan. " 8. Again in Prabhawati Shukla and another V/s. The State of Bihar and others, c. W. J. C. No.1271 of 1997 the order dated 5-5-97 is as follows : "it is not disputed that the petitioners have raised structures without getting a building plan sanctioned and therefore it is always open to the PR. D. A. even to demolish the structures under the provisions of the Act. However, we have in the past given direction to the RR. D. A. to entertain applications for sanction of the building plans if they are submitted in accordance with the building bye-laws etc. We have also noticed that the minimum width of the lane under the draft master plan submitted for approval in case of unspecified lanes/roads is 20 feet and, therefore, it will not be possible for the PR. D. A. to sanction a building plan which is situate on a road/lane which is less than 20 feet in width. " "vice Chairman of the RR. D. A. is directed to identify the road 20 feet wide, having regard to the latest survey map available and RR. D. A. shall require the plot holders of both sides to make equal contribution of land so that the lane/road is atleast 20 feet wide. If the plot owners do not like to make contribution to widen the lane/road to the extent of 20 feet, it will be open to the PR. D. A. to proceed under tlie provisions of the Act to demolish the structures raised without getting the building plan sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this case notice must be given by the RR. D. A. to plot holders of both sides of the road fixing a date and time for measurement so that they may be present at the time of measurement with their document of title on the basis of which they may be required to surrender some land for widening the lane/road. D. A. to plot holders of both sides of the road fixing a date and time for measurement so that they may be present at the time of measurement with their document of title on the basis of which they may be required to surrender some land for widening the lane/road. If the lane is widened to the extent of 20 feet as required under the draft master plan, it will be open to the owners of the houses constructed on such plots to apply to the RR. D. A. for granting ex post facto sanction to the building plans which will be considered by the RR. D. A. in accordance with law. " 9. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the orders relied upon by the Authority were passed in cases where the houses/buildings/structures were admittedly constructed without any sanctioned plan. Learned Counsel strongly criticised the authority for not recognising the distinction between the buildings constructed without a sanctioned plan and buildings constructed on the basis of a sanctioned plan. He further submitted that in misusing the distinction between buildings constructed without any proper authority and those constructed authorisedly the Authority failed to see any difference between the law abiders and the law breakers and treated them similarly. Mr. Jha pointed out that this court has been careful in maintaining the distinction between buildings constructed in accordance with a sanctioned plan and buildings constructed without a sanctioned plan. He brought to my notice an order dated 18-9-96 passed by the same bench in Awn Kumar Mukher-jee and others, V/s. State of Bihar and others C. W. J. C. No.2290 of 1990. In para 5 of that order, it was observed as follows: "lastly, if the authorities find that unauthorised structures have been raised on public land or private land at any place not impeding free flow of traffic, they must take action in accordance with law and follow the rule of giving notice and taking action after appropriate hearing of the matter. We may clarify that if there is a sanctioned plan, and the construction has been raised strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and the authorities require the owner of such structure to remove his boundary wall actually for the purpose of widening of the road to the required extent, this should be done only after giving notice to the person concerned. We have clarified this in our order dated 4-5-1995 where we reiterated that if a building has been constructed in accordance with a sanctioned plan, no part of the structure should be demolished, even if the width of the road in front of such structure is less than 20 ft. In such cases, if need be, the land may have to be acquired before any demolition takes place, or it may be done with the consent of the owner of the property. We do hope that these clarifications will serve the purpose for which we have made them, so that there is no misgiving and all are treated equally. " 10. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, counsel appearing for the Authority could not dispute this position and he simply accepted the proposition that buildings constructed in accordance with a sanctioned plan cannot be subjected to the same rough and ready method devised by the Authority to deal with the buildings constructed without a sanctioned plan. Mr. Singh further accepted that in a case where a building was constructed on the basis of a sanctioned plan all that the Authority could do was to verify whether or not in actuality the construction conformed with the sanctioned plan and in case it was found that in constructing the building deviations were made from the sanctioned plan, such deviations could be dealt with under the provisions of the regional Development Authority Act and the Rules and the bye-laws framed thereunder. 11. Coming back to the facts of this case, it is to be noted that in the writ petition it is asserted that the building was constructed in the year 1958-59 on the basis of a sanctioned plan. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the authority, it is vaguely stated that in recent years the petitioner had made alterations and additions in the building for which no permission was obtained from the Authority. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the authority, it is vaguely stated that in recent years the petitioner had made alterations and additions in the building for which no permission was obtained from the Authority. It is, however, quite evident that the Authority has not examined the building and got its measurements taken in the light of the sanctioned plan nor has it verified whether or not the existing construction was in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 12. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioners building has been constructed on the basis of a sanctioned plan. It is, thus, covered by the directions of this Court in respect of the buildings constructed in accordance with a sanctioned plan as contained in the order dated 18-9-96 passed in C. W. J. C. No.2290/90. The petitioners building, therefore, cannot be subjected to the rough and ready device of putting a mark on it and compelling the demolition of the marked portion. 13. In case the Authority has reasons to believe that the existing building does not fully conform with the sanctioned plan, it may give notice to the petitioner asking him to produce the sanctioned plan and to verify by having the measurements of the existing building taken in presence of the petitioner or his representative to find out whether it is in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not. In case it is found that the building is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the. Authority must leave the petitioner in peace. In case, however, it is found that there are deviations from the sanctioned plan, it will be open to the Authority to initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the bye-laws framed thereunder after giving due notice to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed. Order Accordingly.