IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5572 of 2004 SUDHIR KUMAR son of Sri Saryug Ram, C/oSmt. Deokumari Devi,R/o Nooranibagh Colony, 5/B, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna…………………….Petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR , through Commissioner cum Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Engineer, in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Chief Engineer, Ganga Bridge project, Technical Secretariate, patna. 4.The Executive Engineer, Ganga Bridge, project, Guljarbagh, Patna. 5.The District Magistrate, Patna 6.The Subdivisional Officer, patna. 7.Ganga Mahto son of latge Ram Das Mahto 8.Jamuna Mahto, son of late Ram Das Mahto, both R/o Mohalla Arfabad, Hithi GaliMahabiir Sthan Shersah Road, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, District, Patna. ……...Respondents . ----------- 4 29.03.2011 Heard the parties. 2 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that plot no. B/27 situate at Nooranibagh Colony, in the town of Patna be directed to be allotted in his favour, after cancelling the lease agreement dated 29.11.2000, duly registered on 07.12.2000 (Annexure- 12), having been made in favour of respondents no.7 and 8, being a displaced person under the scheme of rehabilitation prepared by the respondent State by notification no.798 dated 30.06.1983 (Annexure-5) 3. The case of the petitioner is that certain land with a house over it belonging to his mother, besides the 2 lands of other persons, was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case no.38/70-71 for Ganga Bridge Project, Patna and an award was prepared for the same. According to the averments made in the petition the award amount was received by the awardee and under the scheme prepared by the respondent State he was entitled for a plot of land for his rehabilitation. 4. It is admitted case of the parties that the lands belonging to respondent no.7 and 8 were also acquired by the respondent State for the aforesaid Ganga Bridge Project. Under the scheme of rehabilitation prepared by the respondent State, plot no. B/27 has been allotted in favour of respondent No.7 and 8 and a lease agreement was executed by the respondent Executive Engineer in their favour on 29.11.200 and same was duly registered on 7.12.200. Respondent nos. 7 and 8 has filed their counter affidavit stating therein that though plot No. B/27 was allotted to them by the competent authority of the respondent State by a lease agreement dated 29.11.2000, but the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the same and has not vacated that premises despite several orders having been passed by the authorities for its vacating. 5. Though the petitioner claims to have submitted his application in response to a notice issued under the 3 rehabilitation scheme, but from the materials available on record, this Court does not find that application filed by the petitioner before the competent authority under the rehabilitation scheme prepared by the respondent State was finally disposed of. However, plot no. B/27 has not been allotted to him, therefore, he is legally obliged to vacate that premises. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is given a liberty to file a detailed representation before the Chief Engineer, Ganga Bridge Project (respondent no.3), raising his grievance about non-allotment of any plot to him under the rehabilitation scheme prepared by the respondent State. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today along with a certified copy of the present order, the respondent Chief Engineer shall be obliged to consider his case sympathetically for allotment of an alternative plot , if available, provided petitioner fulfills other requirements stipulated under that scheme. However, it is made clear that so far Plot No. B/27 is concerned, that must be vacated by the petitioner at an earliest, as he has encroached upon that plot for the last several years. The respondent Chief Engineer shall be obliged to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law after giving opportunity 4 of hearing to all concerned within a period of six months from the date of filing of such application. 7. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not vacate plot No. B/27 allotted to respondent no. 7 and 8, then adverse inference may be drawn by the respondent Chief Engineer and his claim may be dismissed on that ground alone. 8. It is further clarified that if the petitioner does not appear before respondent No.3 with a detailed representation and certified copy of this order within the time prescribed by this Court, then it shall be construed that the present writ application stood finally rejected by this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Rahman/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)