Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. U.P Chainpuri, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and Mr. Amar Nath Dev. learned counsel for the Patna Regional Development Authority and considered the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as "PRDA") pursuant to earlier order of this Court dated 29.6.2005 and subsequent orders passed by this Court. 2. The appellants initially had raised objections in the writ applications about violation committed by the private respondents and also by the PRDA in construction of the building in question. Writ applications were filed in 1999 and 2000, whereas the building in question had come up in full form much prior to filing of the writ applications, as it is manifest from the materials on record. 3. Counsel for the appellants, however, disputes this aspect of the matter. 4. This Court in these appeals, however, gave indulgence to know from the PRDA as to the illegalities and irregularities committed by the concerned party in construction of the building in question and finally it directed the PRDA to submit a report as to whether rectification has been done in terms of earlier orders of this Court. The report, as such, has been brought on record, marked as annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the PRDA. 5. From annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the PRDA, it appears that the building in question was inspected by the PRDA in presence of the concerned parties and at the spot no violation, whatsoever, was found except minor deviations, which were condonable. As per the report, as contained in annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit, as referred to above, we find that the building in question had come up as per the approved plan and there does not appear to be any major deviation. 6. From the tenor of argument of learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that the appellants virtually want the building in question to be pulled down for the violation and they have also exerted for the right of easement. 7. Since the building had come up much before filing of the writ applications and in view of rectification report, we do not feel it proper to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. 7. Since the building had come up much before filing of the writ applications and in view of rectification report, we do not feel it proper to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. So far right of easement is concerned, the aggrieved party/parties may approach the competent civil court, but, in no manner, this Court should interfere with the order impugned. 8. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.