IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1295 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 16076 of 2007 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.7340 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.7341 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1295 of 2010 ==================================================== 1. IRCON International Limited, Palika Bhawan, Sector XIII, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066. 2. Additional General Manager, IRCON International Limited, 1st Floor, Sone Bhawan, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna - 800001 (Bihar). …. …. (Respondents)-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Arwal. 3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arwal, District Arwal. 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Kaler, District Arwal. 5. The Union of India through Secretary, National Rural Roads Development Authority, New Delhi. …. …. (Respondents)..Respondents 6. Madan Singh son of Ghusa Singh. 7. Kedar Nath Singh son of Late Sobha Singh 8. Deo Narayan Singh son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, Respondent no.6 to 8-resident of Village- Belsar, P.O. Belsar, P.S. Arwal, (Now Mehaudia), District Gayal (Jehanabad) (Now Arwal). …. …. Petitioners .. Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.-3 For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. R.K.Shukla, C.G.C. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5. 15.9.2010. Interlocutory Application No. 7341 of 2010:- This application under Section 5 of the - 2 - Limitation Act has been filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 127 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1295 of 2010: - This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 5th March 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 16076 of 2007. The writ petitioners-the respondent nos. 6 to 8 herein filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 16076 of 2007 complaining that the respondent authorities and their agency while repairing the road under the Prime Minister’s Gram Sadak Yojana utilized the private lands of the writ petitioners without the authority of law. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition; has directed the state authorities to measure the lands utilized in road construction or road repair and to pay compensation to the writ petitioners. The learned single Judge has also reserved liberty to the State Government to recover the amount of compensation from the Union Government and its agency, the respondent nos. 6 and 7. - 3 - Feeling aggrieved the respondent nos. 6 and 7 the concerned agency have preferred this appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the appellants are mere agency to carry out the instructions issued by the Union Government in respect of repairing of the road. It is not responsible to pay compensation if the land utilised is not the Government land. Learned Advocate Mr. R.K.Shukla has appeared for the Union Government. He has submitted that under the aforesaid scheme the Union Government has undertaken the repairing of the existing roads. The question of utilizing private land, therefore, does not arise. The Union Government has not preferred appeal against the impugned order. In the impugned order, learned single Judge has reserved liberty to the State Government to recover compensation from the Union Government and the appellants. It is not the case of the appellants that the liberty has been invoked by the State Government. In our opinion the liberty reserved to the State Government does not give a cause of action to the appellants. In the event the State Government seeks recovery from the present appellants the appellants will have a real cause of action. The same can be challenged before the appropriate forum as and when the demand is made. - 4 - No case for interference at this stage is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. I.A. No. 7340 of 2010 stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)