HC pulls up PRDA for flouting master plan

patna: a division bench of the patna high court comprising chief justice ravi s dhavan and justice shashank k singh on tuesday came down heavily on the patna regional development authority (prda) for allowing unplanned growth of the city in violation of the master plan. the master plan has planned urban expansion and integrated water supply, road, drainage and sewerage system among its objectives.resuming hearing in the r usha and others case, which has snowballed into a major issue regarding planned urban growth, justice dhavan asked the prda counsel, h s himkar, whether he was informed about the rules. the counsel replied in the negative. justice dhavan read out portions of the `geometric design standard guidelines for roads' filed on affidavit by the government counsel alamdar hussain which clearly mentions the land width, width between building lines and width between control lines, both in urban and rural areas. the guidelines clearly state that the national and state highways have to be normally 45 meters wide in rural areas and 30 meters in the urban areas. the distance between two buildings on the opposite side of the road cannot be less than 80 meters in plain and rolling country. the exhaustive standard lays down a comprehensive plan for roads in urban and rural areas and the way they should be planned. even access points on national highways are required to be planned, it adds. the guidelines also lay down regulations for building activities along arterial highways. it says such measures are needed to secure adequate sight distance and preserve the aesthetic value of the highway besides ensuring free flow of traffic. no building activity is allowed or undertaken in this region. the guidelines also suggest control even beyond this point which are called `control lines', within which buildings above 13 meters are not allowed, the guideline adds. peeved at the himkar's arguments, the cj observed, "he is submitting everything except submitting on the issue". the bench hauled the prda for not filing its reply on oath even after repeatedly being asked to do so by the court. the bench was also very concerned when an illegal construction in nageshwar colony belonging to one usha rani sinha was pointed out by basant kumar chaudhary. he said the houseowner had got deemed sanction for alteration on the intervention of the patna high court as the prda had not acted within the stipulated three months' period. however justice aftab alam, while granting sanction, had directed her to abide by the prda guidelines. using that judgement as a pretext, the houseowner got an apartment block developed instead of the alteration, he said. when the bench sought an explanation from himkar, he promised to do the required which, however, did not satisfy the court. himkar told the court the prda had published a notice asking the public to refrain from illegal constructions.