ORDER This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 01.02.2010 as contained in Annexure-9 by which the Municipal Commissioner, Patna has allowed the deviation in the plan of Saket Galaxy Apartment by imposing a cost for the deviation as well as allowing the post facto sanction with respect to four flats constructed by the respondent no. 5. 2. The disputed building known as Saket Galaxy Apartment is situated at Anandpuri having 32 apartments. The petitioner is the owner of one of the apartments. The map of the apartment in question was sanctioned by the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority on 27.11.2000. 3. Before going any further with the order, I would like to refer to an order passed by this Court at the initial stage of hearing. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the builder/respondent no. 5 had made an application for fresh sanction of a plan, seeking condonation to make construction on what was shown as common area and the parking area in the erstwhile sanction plan. It was contended that the construction work was being carried out in pursuance of the impugned order on a day-to-day basis. The Court ordered that till final disposal of the writ application, respondent no. 5 should be restrained from carrying out or making any further constructions, repairs, finishing work etc. under the sanction order dated 01.02.2010 (Annexure-9). The Court, therefore, directed that no sooner the present order is served on the Officer-in-charge of Krishnapuri Police Station, he shall forthwith proceed to carry out the videography of the construction in presence of the Executive Officer of the Patna Regional Development Authority. Copy of the C.D. was to be handed over to the petitioner, the Executive Officer and one copy was to be retained by the Officer-in-charge concerned. Leave was also granted to respondent no. 5 to pray for a copy of the C.D. This order of the Court resulted in certain follow up action, which will be discussed in the later part of this order. 4. While I was hearing the matter on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the order passed by this Court on 26.04.2011, this Court appointed Mr. Ram Kishore Singh and Mr. 4. While I was hearing the matter on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the order passed by this Court on 26.04.2011, this Court appointed Mr. Ram Kishore Singh and Mr. Nadim Seraj, Advocates on behalf of the Court as Commissioners to examine the four flats which were supposed to have been constructed recently, a report of which is annexed with the record of this case. The report reveals that the Advocate Commissioners made an inspection of the building concerned from outside as the apartment was locked by Shri Uday Kumar, Care Taker of Saket Galaxy Apartment as well as by the Police (Local Police Station). On inspection, they found that there was no doubt about the fact that the building in question was at least ten years old. There were no signs of recent construction. The paintings on the four flats as well as the apartment were the same, the windows, iron grills etc. were also identical to the rest of the flats. It would thus appear that the four flats on the ground floor were constructed along with the main building. 5. Having settled this dispute and the submissions which turned out to be false that a fresh building is being constructed on the plot of land on which Saket Galaxy Apartment stands, this Court will now consider the grievances of the petitioner, the materials on record to conclude as to whether the plan for the four flats was sanctioned by the Patna Regional Development Authority. 6. The petitioner along with the owners of the other 31 flats have formed an association known as Saket Galaxy Owners Association, which was registered vide registration no. 2016 of 2009-10. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that after completion of the building when the 32 flat owners were handed over possession of the flats, the builder deviated from the original plan. It is further submitted that the flat owners gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, Patna. It is alleged that on 14.03.2011, certain persons created nuisance in the apartment, which were hired by the owners of the newly constructed flats. 8. It is further submitted that the flat owners gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, Patna. It is alleged that on 14.03.2011, certain persons created nuisance in the apartment, which were hired by the owners of the newly constructed flats. 8. In this case, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made out the builder to be the villain of the piece, which may be true in most of the cases, but in the present case, the fact would reveal that the shoe pinches elsewhere. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if it is presumed that the builder had got a revised plan sanctioned, it was incumbent upon the builder to act as per the provisions of the Bihar Apartment Owner Act, 2006. I may state at this point that the aforesaid Act came into force in the year 2006, whereas the agreement between the intervenors-respondents was much before the enactment of the Act. As such, there is no violation of the provisions of the Act. 9. The case of the intervenors is that they had entered into an agreement with respondent no. 5 as far back as in the year 2000. It is submitted on their behalf that it was only when the possession was being handed over to the intervenors, the owners of the flat created a problem and obstructed and made nuisance in the premises, so much so, that although the intervenors were given possession, they were not permitted to enter into the flats. On behalf of the intervenors, it is submitted that they all are coming from a middle class background, most of them have taken loans for the purposes of purchasing the flats in question and they do not have the strength to fight with these 32 flat owners. It is submitted that they had, on no occasion, created a nuisance, rather it was the petitioner and others who had created an impediment and had not permitted them to inter into the flats in question. 10. The facts reveal that in the year 2005, objections were filed on behalf of certain persons. Vigilance Case No. 35B of 2001 was instituted and there was a notice to the petitioner on 09.03.2005 to demolish part of the building. The builder moved this Court vide CWJC No. 6207 of 2005. The order of demolition was stayed. 10. The facts reveal that in the year 2005, objections were filed on behalf of certain persons. Vigilance Case No. 35B of 2001 was instituted and there was a notice to the petitioner on 09.03.2005 to demolish part of the building. The builder moved this Court vide CWJC No. 6207 of 2005. The order of demolition was stayed. The Bihar Construction Co-operation Limited thereafter submitted a revised plan vide letter no. BCL/2005-2006 on 19.05.2005 for condonation of the deviation and for post facto sanction. The letter is annexed as Annexure R 5/6 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, in which it has been specifically stated that the revised plan in respect of Saket Galaxy Apartment is being submitted to the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority, which was subsequently allowed by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9. 11. To sum up, there are two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner; firstly that the deviation in the original plan of Saket Galaxy Apartment in the vigilance case does not relate to the additional four flats built by respondent no. 5 and that the construction has taken place recently in the year 2010. As far as the second contention is concerned, this Court has already dealt with it and held that the constructions were made ten years back. 12. The question as to whether the vigilance case was related to the construction of the four flats has been answered by respondent no. 5 in his counter affidavit. Counsel for the respondent no. 5 refers to Annexure R 5/1 and R 5/4 to the counter affidavit, which is the application filed by Bansal Corporation Limited for mutation of the four flats constructed by them. These letters are dated 24.02.2003. It may be pointed out that on 19.03.2005, an order was passed by the Patna Regional Development Authority in Vigilance Case No. 35B of 2001 calling in question the construction of four flats and ordering demolition. It may be pointed her that the complaint was made neither by the writ petitioner nor by any of the purchasers of the 31 other flats. Respondent no. 5, thereafter, submitted a revised map vide letter no. BCL/2005-06 on 19.05.2005 for condonation of deviation of the plan and for post facto sanction which is annexed as R 5/6. It may be pointed her that the complaint was made neither by the writ petitioner nor by any of the purchasers of the 31 other flats. Respondent no. 5, thereafter, submitted a revised map vide letter no. BCL/2005-06 on 19.05.2005 for condonation of deviation of the plan and for post facto sanction which is annexed as R 5/6. The 32 flat owners got their apartment registered under the provisions of the Bihar Permanent Ownership Act, 2006 on 05.07.2007. It has been argued on behalf of respondent no. 5 that before the four flats were transferred to the new owners, the premise was often used on request by the flat owners for functions etc. However, when the flat owners and the petitioner came to know that respondent no. 5 had transferred the four flats in question, they began to make allegations that the flats had been constructed by encroaching upon the parking area and the common area. Many of the flat owners were interested in buying the flats. 13. During the proceedings of Vigilance Case No. 35 B of 2001, various orders were passed by the Patna Regional Development Authority. The measurement was taken as would appear from Annexure R 5/9, which shows in detail the area constructed in front and in the rear as well as the deviation made by respondent no. 5, also the charges on account of construction made of the four newly constructed flats. A sum of Rs. 1,42,630/- was to be paid on account of the said deviation and post facto sanction of the map and a recommendation was made vide order dated 11.01.2010. The map as well as the calculations as per the parameters enclosed would indicate that 720 sq. mts. Has been reserved for the parking. 14. It has been argued on behalf of respondent no. 5 that the post facto sanction of the revised map is well within the provisions of Clause 10 (2) of the Bye-Laws and Appendix-L thereto. A deviation as per the Bye-Laws would indicate that if the deviation is minor, it may be condoned. The authorities found that the deviation did not affect the master plan and that it was made after the original plan was sanctioned and on payment of condonation fee. On perusal of Note-2 of Appendix L, it is apparent that there are certain conditions laid down before a plan may be sanctioned. The authorities found that the deviation did not affect the master plan and that it was made after the original plan was sanctioned and on payment of condonation fee. On perusal of Note-2 of Appendix L, it is apparent that there are certain conditions laid down before a plan may be sanctioned. These are:- (i) If it is in violation to any original plan, master plan, zonal plan or is in violation with a project which has already been sanctioned over the said lands, (ii) if it violates and encroaches the set back of a non-residential building having a height of 11 meters and (iii) the four setbacks are violated beyond the condonable limits. 15. Note-3 to Appendix-L provides that any deviation or the sanctioned map which as per the Bye-Laws does not affect the minimum set back and the height of the building, the area of land beyond condonable limits will be considered minor deviation. In case, due to aforesaid deviation, there is minor change in FAR, it shall also be considered as minor deviation. 16. Perusal of the document as well as the original file, which has been produced by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation, there is no disputed fact that the materials placed on record by respondent no. 5 cannot be disputed. The documents such as the letter dated 19.05.2005, the orders passed in Vigilance Case No. 35B of 2001 indicates two facts, firstly that the revised map was placed for consideration before the Patna Regional Development Authority and it would also indicate that the construction was made ten years prior to the filing of the writ application or at least prior to 2005. 17. I may also refer to the report of the Police Officer who had come on the post on the day on which the possession was being handed over to the four flat owners i.e. the intervenors and one another. After the complaint was made, the Investigating Officer wrote to the Patna Regional Development Authority to seek information regarding the status of the four flats in dispute. The Patna Regional Development Authority replied that the builder had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,42,630/- with respect to condonation and post facto approval of the flats. After the complaint was made, the Investigating Officer wrote to the Patna Regional Development Authority to seek information regarding the status of the four flats in dispute. The Patna Regional Development Authority replied that the builder had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,42,630/- with respect to condonation and post facto approval of the flats. This document is contained in Annexure R 5/10 would also indicate that the flats were constructed much earlier than 2010 and that the revised plan was the subject matter of the Vigilance Case No. 35 B (1) of 2001. The order indicates that the respondent no. 5 would be granted sanction for the revised map after depositing the cost of Rs. 1,42,630/-. Because of the fact that the petitioner had moved before this Court, perhaps the formal order has not been passed, but by the order as contained in Annexure-9 would virtually mean that the Patna Regional Development Authority had sanctioned the map in view of the fact that respondent no. 5 had already deposited the cost imposed on him. 18. This Court may also refer that it does not appreciate that the petitioner should submit wrong facts before the Court which leads to Courts to pass orders which it would otherwise not pass. The submission that respondent no. 5 was in the process of constructing the flats in question is palpably a false statement or instructions given to the Counsel for the petitioner. 19. In the circumstances aforesaid, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned (Annexure-9). The Municipal Corporation should complete all formalities within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent builder should thereafter hand over possession to the concerned parties. 20. This writ application is dismissed.