Judgment 1. The petitioners Cooperative Society is a Cooperative Society of residents residing in what is commonly known as Lokpriya Apartments in the locality commonly referred to as Vivekanand Parking Area of Patna. The multi-storeyed building plan was submitted and was duly sanctioned by the PRDA. In the sanction plan which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and has been compared with the original from the records of the PRDA by this Court and found to be the same, there is no dispute that the front set back of the building had to be three meters and there was a road of six meters in the front. The building, it was alleged by the petitioners, was in fact constructed leaving a front set back of more than three meters notwithstanding the road being still six meters. Once the building became habitable, a six feet height boundary wall was made which also let six meters road and, as indicated above, a front set back of more than six meters as sanctioned. The petitioners case is that all of a sudden on 14.9.2001, some officials of the PRDA came and put red mark on the boundary wall of the petitioners Apartment stating that the said boundary wall was an encroachment and had to be demolished. Petitioners immediately objected. They filed applications before the Vice-Chancellor of PRDA but without any proceedings known to them or without hearing them on 22.7.2002, officials of PRDA suddenly turned up with bulldozers and cranes and demolished the six feet height boundary wall measuring 13.92 meters east to west. This exposed the petitioners. Petitioners were told that the boundary wall was an encroachment and that was all. This action of the respondents have brought the petitioners to this Court. 2. First, a counter affidavit was filed in this Court on or about 26.7.2007 wherein the Assistant Engineer of the dissolved PRDA Shri Dilip Kumar Singh has sworn on behalf of respondents that as per the plan sanctioned, there had to be a six meter road in front of the Apartment but it was found to be only fifteen feet that is less than six meters in front. As such, in order to maintain and ensure free flow of traffic, it was an encroachment. It was, thus, demolished. It was a major deviation from sanctioned plan of the petitioners by the petitioners. As such, in order to maintain and ensure free flow of traffic, it was an encroachment. It was, thus, demolished. It was a major deviation from sanctioned plan of the petitioners by the petitioners. It was also asserted that in two sets of writ petitions, one presumably the famous/infamous Arun Mukherjees case and the other in relation to some of the neighbours of petitioners (petitioners not being parties), some orders were passed to ensure twenty feet wide road and demolish encroachments. This was by way of justification of making the road six meters. This Court, by order dated 26.7.2007 noticing the aforesaid stand, directed the respondents to file any measurement done to ascertain the actual possession before taking action for demolition. By subsequent order, this Court also directed the respondents to disclose the names of the persons who had authorized the demolition and conducted the demolition. This was in view of the measurement filed by PRDA as Annexure-B to their second counter affidavit. A reference to the said measurement as supplied by PRDA itself is a tacit admission by PRDA of their wrongful and illegal action in fact or mala fide action in fact if I may say so. Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the erstwhile PRDA would show that as against a front set back of three meters, the petitioners Apartment had a front set back of 3.09 meters to 3.22 meters. Therefore, the front set back was more than what was required to be left. This could not be in violation of any law rather it was in addition to the minimum that they had left. Next if we see the measurement of the road, it would be seen that the petitioners boundary wall was straight. On almost half of the site along the boundary wall from the east, the road is in fact not six meters but varying between 6.20 meters to 6.32 meters. At the beginning of petitioners plot, the adjacent plot owner has cut the straight line and come forward by 0.25 meters. If anything it is the neighbour of the petitioners who had cut the straight line and gone 0.25 meters on the road. 3. Now coming to the western part of the frontage running east-west where the road is shown to be 5.78 to 5.94 meters. If anything it is the neighbour of the petitioners who had cut the straight line and gone 0.25 meters on the road. 3. Now coming to the western part of the frontage running east-west where the road is shown to be 5.78 to 5.94 meters. A reference to the plan as submitted by PRDA itself would show that petitioners boundary wall is straight. The offending part is the petitioners neighbour across the road whose boundary wall is not straight and has come upon the road by almost 0.60 meters. This Court is now requested by PRDA that this being the ofiending measurement, the Court must hold the demolition of petitioners boundary wall as valid and not to be interfered moreso when there are judgments as indicated above to keep the width of the road to six meters. 4. First coming to the judgment of this Court. No order of the case of Arun Mukherjee has been brought to the notice of this Court which says that notwithstanding the law and notwithstanding that no acquisition proceedings rather taken up all roads must be widened to twenty feet (six meters) by the authorities without any proceeding whatsoever. The law is settled that if a person is to be deprived of usage of his any other part of the land by State and that property is to be put to public use then the same has to be first acquired in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to PRDA. Without such acquisition, PRDA cannot restrict the landowner from constructing its boundary wall on the said land. This position has been accepted by Division Bench of this Court in a judgment since reported in the case of Srikrishnapuri Boring Road Vyapari Sangh V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 1995 1 PLJR 418 wherein this Court has clearly held firstly that if the roads had to be expanded, they have to be so shown in the master plan. Secondly, before roads can actually be built to the expanded width, lands have to be acquired and so long as the lands are not acquired, the landowner has a right to fence or build boundary wall to protect it. This is even otherwise the law. Secondly, before roads can actually be built to the expanded width, lands have to be acquired and so long as the lands are not acquired, the landowner has a right to fence or build boundary wall to protect it. This is even otherwise the law. Thus, the position is that there is no law or judgment of this Court which has authorized PRDA or any authority to widen all roads by minimum six meters by demolishing all walls without there being a land acquisition proceedings in that regard. 5. The next question is that PRDA has repeatedly averred that the construction of the boundary wall was an encroachment. This Court wonders encroachment on whose land. Was the land for the road in front of the petitioners ever acquired by the PRDA? If not then on whose land did the petitioners encroach. If they had encroached on some private persons land then PRDA had again no authority to step in private land and take any action on the ground of alleged encroachment. Before such an action can be taken by PRDA, it must be shown that the road was a public road acquired and declared so and till such time it is not so done, PRDA has no authority to step on the said land much less demolish any boundary wall thereon especially when the boundary wall is a part of sanctioned plan. 6. Now coming to the site plan on measurement as submitted by PRDA itself. If there was any deviation reducing the road to less than six meters, it was on the other side of the road and not by the petitioners. This is the measurement as submitted by PRDA itself. The question is this measurement as submitted by PRDA was submitted in response to the directions of this Court to file records of proceedings in which the boundary wall of the petitioners was found to be offending the sanction plan as was the averment in the counter affidavit. Unfortunately in spite of repeated orders, no such proceeding has been brought on record nor any such measurement brought on record except Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit which has been noticed as above. This is an admission by PRDA that petitioners were not the offenders in any manner. 7. The question now is what is to be done and to what relief, petitioners are entitled. This is an admission by PRDA that petitioners were not the offenders in any manner. 7. The question now is what is to be done and to what relief, petitioners are entitled. In view of this Court, having found that petitioners were not the offenders in any manner and there being no proceedings against them in Court to demolish of their boundary wall and the same was done mala fide and illegally, I direct PRDA or its successor-in-interest, now the Patna Municipal Corporation, to reconstruct the boundary wall in the same speed in which they demolished. This Court grants a grace period. Respondents, that is the successor of PRDA which stood dissolved during pendency of the writ application that is the Patna Municipal Corporation, would reconstruct the six feet height boundary wall all along petitioners southern boundary wall as it stood earlier within seven days from today without demur and report to this Court. This Court is passing this order keeping in view the fact that when it came to demolition, it did not take more than forty eight hours. It must similarly reconstruct the same. The cost of reconstruction must be born by the Patna Municipal Corporation, the successor to the PRDA and could be realized from the person who was responsible to take this illegal decision. It is traversity of law that for a boundary wall which was offending and which was not petitioners, petitioners boundary wall was demolished and the offending boundary walls were not touched. This could only happen with PRDA. 8. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. Let a compliance report with regard to construction of boundary wall be submitted to this Court immediately on the reopening of the Court after X-Mas Holidays. 10. The original case plan records of PRDA, which was in sealed cover, is being opened and is being returned to the respective counsel. 11. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the erstwhile PRDA for proper compliance.