IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10309 of 2007 1. YUGESHWAR SINGH SON OF LATE RAM PADARATH SINGH. 2. VIJAY SINGH SON OF LATE MAHENDRA SINGH. 3. SHIV NARAIN GUPTA SON OF LATE CHALITTAR SAO ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SORAMPUR, P.O. AND P.S. DULHIN BAZAR, ANCHAL DULHIN BAZAR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, R.E.O., GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, TECHNICAL SECRETARIATE, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, R.E.O., VTH FLOOR, VISHESHWARAIY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, NEAR NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 5. S.D.O., R.E.O., PATNA DIVISION, BORING CANAL ROAD, NEAR HARIJAN THAN, PATNA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R.E.O., PATNA DIVISION, BORING CANAL ROAD, NEAR HARIJAN THANA, PATNA. 7. CIVIL S.D.O., PALIGANJ, POLICE STATION AND ANCHAL OFFICE PALIGANJ, DISTRICT PATRNA. 8. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, DULHIN BAZAR P.S. ANCHAL OFFICE DULHIN BAZAR, DISTRICT PATNA. 9. VIVEKA SINGH SON OF SHIV PRASAD SINGH ( CONTRACTOR), PROPRIETOR OF VIVEKA AND COMPANY, VILLAGE AKHTIYARPUR, P.O. AND P.S. PALIGANJ, ANCHAL OFFICE PALIGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. ----------- For the petitioners : M/S Uday Shankar Sharan Singh and Krishna Kishore Singh, Advocates. For the State : M/S Subhash Prasad Singh, G.A. 8 and Dilip Kumar, A.C. to G.A. 8. For the respondent No. : M/S D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Bajarangi Lal,Advocate. 14/ 06-07-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the State as well as respondent no.9 Viveka Singh (Contractor) who is supposed to be the proprietor of M/S Vivek and Company and who was given the responsibility of construction of a road from Dulhin Bazar - 2 - to Dehruli. The allegation in the writ application is that while carrying out such an assignment given by the State of Bihar, the pucca residential house belong to these petitioners located in village Sorampur was illegally demolished by the agents, contractors or their employees and such action is totally unwarranted in law or without any sanction in law in this regard. Looking at the allegation and the stand taken by the official respondents, which were at variance this Court had occasion to record vide its order dated 29.01.2008 directing the Subdivisional Officer, Paliganj to carry an independent enquiry and submit a report to the Court in a sealed cover within a period of four weeks. A report was submitted which was opened and brought on record by the office and the same is available on record. Copies of the enquiry report were furnished to all the parties. Prima facie the allegation and the averments made in the writ application were found to be true on reading of the report, allegation cannot be brushed aside though certain disputes have been raised with regard to the corrections of the report and the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. This Court clarifies that the report was ordered to be filed to test the veracity of the allegations and the incident in question. - 3 - Counter affidavit has been now filed on behalf of respondent no.9, the contractor and certain explanations are sought to be issued which this Court is not convinced with. In such matters not every aspect of the same can be decided by this Court without proper evidence and pleadings more so under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances this Court disposes of the writ application with liberty to the petitioners that they shall file a suit for declaration of damages before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the Court in question shall, without granting unnecessary adjournments either to the plaintiffs or defendants, decide the issue prima facie on the evidence which may come, preferably within a period of nine months from the filing of the said suit. The finding of the court will form the basis for an appropriate relief or award which may accrue in favour of these petitioners. The petitioners will also attach a copy of this order for information to the Court concerned. The petition stands disposed of with above direction. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/