Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Prafulla Ranjan Shrivastava learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition, learned counsel representing the P.R.D.A. and Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, appearing for respondents four to seven. 2. This writ petition is filed against orders passed by the Vice-Chairman of the Authority on a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 54 of the Bihar Regional Development Authorities Act and by the Chairman, Appellate Tribunal, holding that the petitioners appeal against the order passed by the Vice-Chairman was not maintainable. 3. The petitioner is a neighbour of respondents 4 to 7; though their respective houses are not adjacent but are separated by 4-5 houses situate in between. 4. The petitioner made a complaint before the Vice-Chairman of the Authority alleging that in the construction of their houses the respondents had committed a number of irregularities. The complaint was in respect of two houses of the respondents, one situate at Ashok Raj Path and the other at Rajendra Nagar. In this case we are concerned with the Ashok Raj Path house/shop. In his complaint the petitioner alleged the following irregularities committed by the respondents in the construction of their house/shop at Ashok Raj Path : (i) the construction was made without any sanctioned plan, (ii) the construction was made without leaving any set-backs on any of the four sides of the house, (iii) the construction was made in violation of the floor-area-ratio norms and (iv) that in making the construction, encroachment was made over huge Govt. lands from west side of the house. The complaint was later supplemented by another petition in which many other irregularities were pointed out. Some of the allegations made by the petitioner were patently unfounded inasmuch as the respondents did have a sanctioned map and an amended sanctioned map for construction of the building. Further, in 1979 when the maps were sanctioned there were no FAR norms and if there was any provision for leaving set-backs on the Ashok Raj Path, counsel for the petitioner was unable to bring it to the notice of the Court. Further, it appears from the order of the Vice- Chairman that at the time of hearing of the matter the only issue raised before him was the encroachment made in the galli lying adjacent west to the house of the respondents. Further, it appears from the order of the Vice- Chairman that at the time of hearing of the matter the only issue raised before him was the encroachment made in the galli lying adjacent west to the house of the respondents. On that issue the impugned order made the following observations : "From the perusal of the sanctioned map plan of Patna Improvement Trust (99C of 1967) it appears that this sanctioned map plan shows the galli in question to be 6 wide. However, the sanctioned map plan of PRDA (846/1978) shows the galli in question to be 64" wide. The local inspection cum-measurement report shows that the width of the galli in question is only 55" wide on the spot. Hence it appears that neither the actual width of the galli is settled (in view of the two conflicting dimension given in the sanctioned maps of P.lT. and PRDA) nor is the extent of encroachment (if any) made by both the plots on either side of this galli is clear and settled. In this view of the matter no specific order can be passed on the point of the alleged encroachment against the O.P." 5. Against the order passed by the Vice-Chairman, the petitioner made an appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal holding that the petitioner was not a person aggrieved strictly within the meaning of Section 54 of the Act and, therefore, no appeal was available to him. 6. Then the matter was brought before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this writ petition Mr. Srivastava raised a number of issues; he also submitted that the construction of the house/shop was made in complete deviation from the plan sanctioned by the Authority in the year 1979. l am unable to entertain the objection for two reasons. One is that these questions were never raised before the Authority and secondly the petitioner is not directly or even indirectly affected by those alleged deviations. As regards the question of encroachment towards the western galli, the issue appears to be full of disputed facts which cannot be properly adjudicated on in a writ proceeding. The petitioner can, therefore, get no relief by this Court. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. But the dismissal of this case will not stand in the way of the petitioner in filing a suit seeking appropriate reliefs. The petitioner can, therefore, get no relief by this Court. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. But the dismissal of this case will not stand in the way of the petitioner in filing a suit seeking appropriate reliefs. No order as to costs.