IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6182 of 2010 1. Murari Yadav, S/O Late Kinnu Yadav, R/O Village Mohbadia, P.S - Chakai, District - Jamui. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Jamui. --------------- 30.8.2011. Heard Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Binita Singh, learned Assisting Counsel to AAG-1 for the State. The writ petition is another addition to the chain of writ petition which has been filed by the land holders complaining, inter alia, encroachment over their raiyati lands by the authorities of the State Government, for the purpose of construction of road under one scheme or the other. In so far as the present case is concerned, the raiyati land of the petitioner has been acquired by the respondents for construction of a road from Ghaghuria to Bakrila about 8 kms. situated at village Mohbadia in the district of Jamui. It is the contention of the petitioner that presently a road exists having width of 11 ft. and the State, under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, 2 has decided to widen the said road upto 40 ft. with 20 ft. flank and 5 ft. wide Nala on both sides. It is contended that for the said purpose, the land of the petitioner situated by the side of the road, has been acquired by the respondent State without any proceedings and without any compensation. As despite the representations of the petitioner, copy whereof has been placed at Annexures-2 and 2/1 of the writ petition, no steps were being taken by the respondent authorities, the present writ petition came to be filed. A large number of writ petitions were filed and taken up by a bench of this court complaining acquisition of lands by the respondent authorities under one scheme or the other as in the present case. The said batch of cases arising out of C.W.J.C.No.2490 of 2010 and other cases were disposed of by a bench of this court on 2.5.2011 after hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Additional Advocate General No.1 appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries. The learned Single Judge upon examination of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution, the obligation 3 of the State to respect the same as well as duty of the State in ensuring convenient pathway to the citizens, has disposed of the writ petition by issuing certain directions which reads as follows: “(a) Any petitioner aggrieved by the alleged forcible intrusion into his lands for any of the aforesaid purposes may represent before the District Magistrate within a period of four weeks of the present order. The time period shall necessarily vary where a person has approached this court in any other writ application to be computed from the date of the direction therein. In any other case, this period has to be computed from the date of such intrusion. (b) If the application is not filed within the time prescribed, the District Magistrate shall be under no obligation to hold such enquiry, but without prejudice to the other legal rights. (C) The representation must be supported by documentary evidence. The District Magistrate shall be under no obligation to consider simple representations without supporting documents in the form of a roving enquiry. (d) The District Magistrate shall either enquire into the matter himself or designate a senior government functionary to hold the enquiry. 4 The applicant shall be informed of the date and time of enquiry. Any measurements shall be taken in his presence only. If there have been any earlier enquiries and reports, it shall necessarily have to be taken into consideration. (e) Any construction work done during the pendency of such enquiry shall be entirely at the risk and responsibility of the respondents to abide by the final orders that may be passed in such enquiry. (f) If the allegations of any forcible intrusion are found to be correct, the District Magistrate shall take appropriate action to forthwith desist and to restore the lands in an appropriate manner. (g) Nothing in the present order shall preclude the State Government, if it so desires, to proceed under the laws of the land for acquisition, direct negotiation or any other mode or method to justify lawful activity on the lands. (h) In cases where rival competing claims are made with regard to ownership of the lands involving complicated questions of title, quite obviously, the executive enquiry shall not be competent to decide the same. In that event the contesting parties shall have to approach the 5 competent civil court for appropriate orders. (i) In cases where there have been negligible intrusions, not more than two feet, it shall not merit any consideration or enquiry.” Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issues raised in the present writ petition is fully governed by the judgment and order passed in the batch of writ petitions arising from C.W.J.C.No.2490 of 2010 and have no objection to the disposal of the present writ petition in terms of the orders passed in the said batch of cases. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the directions and obligations cast upon the respective parties as contained in the order dated 2.5.2011 passed in C.W.J.C.No.2490 of 2010 and analogous cases as also taken note of hereinabove. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)