IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21699 of 2011 1. Kamlesh Sharma Son of Manik Chand Singh belong to the Village Madhopur, P.O. Dhibera, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna. 2. Nawalkishore Sharma Son of Late Manik Chand Singh belong to the Village Madhopur, P.O. Dhibera, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna. 3. Yugeshwar Singh Son Of Late Ram Bhajan Singh belong to the Village Madhopur, P.O. Dhibera, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District Patna. …Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar, Patna. 4. The Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif Circle, Phulwarisharif, Patna. 5. The Engineer In-Chief, Rural Works Department, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Patna. 7. The Junior Engineer, Rural Works Department, Phulwarisharif (Section), Patna. 8. Uday Singh Son Of Late Rana Singh Contractor, Resident Of Mohalla Rajapur, P.S. S. K. Puri, District Patna. …Respondents For the petitioners: :Mr. Mithilesh Kumar For the State :Kumari Amrita ---------------------------------- 02. 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned G.P.10 for the State. The grievance of the petitioners is that the lands belonging to them as set out in paragraph 4 have been forcibly utilized by the respondents for construction of Road under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that similar issue was raised in batch of writ petitions being CWJC No. 2490 of 2010 and analogous matters wherein this Court, 2 on a consideration of entire aspects of the matter, disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to such aggrieved person(s) to approach the concerned authority for redressal of the grievance(s). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the light of the said order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2490 of 2010 and analogous matters he would file an appropriate representation which may be directed to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. On going through the pleadings on record, it appears that several writ petitions raising identical grievance(s) was/were filed in this Court. Those cases were consolidated and a common order was passed on 02.05.2011. The operative portion whereof reads as under:- “In the nature of the controversy, it is considered proper to give the following directions:- (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 3 supported by documentary evidence. The District Magistrate shall be under no obligation to consider simple representation 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. 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 competent civil court for appropriate orders. (i) In cases where there have been negligible instructions, not more than two feet, it shall not merit any consideration or enquiry. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations and 4 directions.” This Court is, thus, satisfied that present application be also disposed of in the terms in which CWJC No. 2490 of 2010 and analogous matters were disposed of. I order accordingly. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )