IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1068 of 2011 In C. REV. 130 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5668 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 4973 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1068 of 2011 ======================================================= 1. Ramjee Prasad, S/o Sri Jamun Prasad 2. Rambriksh Rai @ Rambriksh Yadav, S/o Late Madan Gope 3. Savitri Devi, W/o Late Sharifan Rai. All residents of Mohalla-Munnachak, Kankarbagh, P.S.-Patrakarnagar, District-Patna. .... .... Appellants/Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer, Division-I, Bihar State Housing Board, Kankarbagh, Patna. .... .... Respondents/Respondents. ======================================================= Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Sheela Sharma Mr. Shivendra Kishore Roy, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG 11 For the Housing Board : Mr. R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate. ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 09-08-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 4973 of 2011: The delay of forty days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Patna High Court LPA No.1068 of 2011 (3) dt.09-08-2011 2 Re. Letters Patent Appeal No.1068 of 2011: The appellant-writ petitioners have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30th March 2011 made by the learned single Judge in Civil Review No. 130 of 2010. Learned Advocate Mr. Shivendra Kishore Roy has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have allowed the review application and ought to have expunged that part of the order made in the writ petition indicating that in case the disputed land is required by the State Government for widening the road, the possession may be taken over “after initiating proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act against the petitioners and by evicting them in accordance with law”. He has submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have directed that the possession of the disputed land may not be taken over unless the said land is acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act. We see no merit in this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit /- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)