Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against orders, initially passed by the Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority and then in appeal by the appellate authority asking the petitioners to demolish portions of their house to the extent of a stair room with the dimension 5 8"x 7, a 3 wide balcony near the garrage, two pillars 15"x15" in dimension and the construction on the stair case with the dimension 14 4" x 3 9 1/2". 2. One Dr. P. N. Jaiswal (deceased husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioners 2 to 4) had submitted the construction plan for sanction before the Patna Regional Development Authority. It appears that the aforesaid portions which are required to be demolished by the Authority unwittingly fell in the portion of the land which was common between Dr. P. N. Jaiswal and his three brothers. Though the other two brothers did not raise any objection to the proposed construction, the third brother respondent no. 4 filed an objection before the Authority against the plan on the grounds that the aforesaid portions fell on a common piece of land. On the objection, enquiries were made and it came to light that though the portions in question indeed fell on a common piece of land, the construction did not cause any obstruction in the passage of respondent no.4. It also appeared that there was a likelihood of compromise between the two brothers. In those circumstances the Authority gave its sanction to the map on 9.3.79, excluding the disputed structures but observing that sanction for those structures would be accorded as and when compromise was arrived at between the parties. However, no compromise petition could be filed before the Authority for a long time and in that circumstance the Vice Chairman finally passed the order directing the petitioners to remove the disputed structure as indicated above. The petitioners appeal before the appellate authority was also dismissed by order dated 10.11.1988. This writ petition was filed against the aforesaid two orders. Before the matter came to this court, Dr. P. N. Jaiswal died and this writ petition was accordingly filed by his widowed wife and the three sons. 3. The petitioners appeal before the appellate authority was also dismissed by order dated 10.11.1988. This writ petition was filed against the aforesaid two orders. Before the matter came to this court, Dr. P. N. Jaiswal died and this writ petition was accordingly filed by his widowed wife and the three sons. 3. During the pendency of this case, a compromise petition has been filed which is at flag Y. This compromise petition was affidavited both by petitioner no.1 and Sahdeo Singh Jaiswal, respondent no.4 and it is duly signed by counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent no.4. 4. In paras 6 and 7 of the compromise petition, it is stated as follows : "6. That now the parties hereto i.e. the petitioners on the one side and respondent no.4 on the other side at the intervention of common friends and well wishers have mutually compromised their dispute outside the court and they do not want to prosecute this matter any further. "7. That for the sake of good family relation and happiness in their families respondent no.4 has withdrawn his objection, to the construction being illegal, as they were on the common land of the Jayaswal family, and, he has no objection if the revised plan no.930/78 is fully sanctioned, that is the conditional sanction accorded to plan case no.930/78, as contained in Annexure 7, is withdrawn and that plan is fully sanctioned." 5. In view of the matter having been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent no.4. who happens to be close relative, having withdrawn his objection, I no longer see any justification for demolishing the disputed structures. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the petitioners are directed to file a fresh representation before the Vice Chairman of the Patna Regional Development Authority for according sanction for the disputed structures as well. The petitioners will enclose a copy of the compromise petition and a copy of this order along with their representation and the Vice Chairman is expected to accord his sanction for the disputed structures within two months from the date of filing of the representation. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.