IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1464 of 2010 1. UPENDRA KUMAR @ UPENDRA SAH S/O SURYA SAH R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI), BIHAR 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE ARERAJ DISTT. MOTIHARI 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER PAHARPUR, DISTT. MOTIHARI, BIHAR 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. (P.W.D.), MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) 7. THE OFFICER INCHARGE PAHARPUR P.S., DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 9. NAND KISHOR MISRA S/O LATE MANSI MISRA R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 10. RAMYASH MISRA S/O LATE MANSI MISRA R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 11. PARAS MISRA S/O LATE MANSI MISRA R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 12. RAMAYAN MISRA S/O LATE MANSI MISRA R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 13. BHOP MISRA S/O LATE MANSI MISRA R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 14. VIJAY MISRA S/O RAMYASH MISRA R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 15. RAJ KUMAR MISRA S/O NAND KISHOR MISRA R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 16. BABLU MISRA S/O RAMAYAN MISRA R/O VILL- LAKHANIPUR, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ----------- 2. 01.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ petition was filed on 27.1.2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General, the second to facilitate quick filing of the counter affidavit by the respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf 2 of respondent nos. 5 and 7. Learned counsel for the State prays for further time on behalf of the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari and the Circle Officer, Paharpur, Motihari to file counter affidavit. The Court does not appreciate that if it was convenient for the Executive Engineer and the Superintendent of Police to file counter affidavit in time, the other respondents have naturally been negligent in discharge of their duties to assist the Court. The Court is not persuaded to grant further adjournment to file a counter affidavit as a matter of right. What the District Magistrate and the Circle Officer essentially seek to do is to stall the proceeding before the Court, delay consideration of justice to the petitioner by the Court. The petitioner alleges encroachment of P.W.D. road by respondent nos. 9 to 16. That issue does not concern the Court at this stage in view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5 stating as follows at Paragraph-3:- “That the contents of para 5 of the writ petition are true. In fact the plot under Khesra no. 1166 which is not actual bone of contention between the petitioner and respondents no. 9 to 16 belongs to the Road Construction Department. The land lies adjacent to the plot no. 199, Khesra no. 1316 which belongs to the petitioner. The said land of Road Construction Department has 3 been illegally encroached by respondents no. 9 to 16 and has been converted into make shift cattle shed. The entry and exit of the petitioner to and from the public road is obstructed by this encroachment.” The counter affidavit of respondent no. 7 at Paragraph-4 states as follows:- “That it is submitted that the facts stated in Para-1 of the writ petition require no comment from the respondents because they are prayer of the petitioner. The writ petitioner is a military person and he has constructed his house in Plot No. 1316 and in front of his house, just adjacent west, Plot No. 1266 exists which is P.W.D. land covering the entire width of the writ petitioner’s house. The respondents No. 9 to 16 have encroached upon the P.W.D. land and have constructed their house which blocks the frontage of the house of the writ petitioner.” The Court finds it very difficult to understand in view of the aforesaid statements, the complete silent of the District Magistrate to act in accordance with law. If he were of the opinion that the stand taken by respondent nos. 5 and 7 was not correct, he is certainly entitled to that view but only after granting hearing to all parties concerned and then passing of a reasoned, speaking order. Roads are the lifeline of a nation. There can be no impediment on the road. It is unfortunate that the District Magistrate need the direction of the 4 High Court, if what the petitioner contends is correct, let the District Magistrate perform his Administrative duties in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Nothing in this order shall be presumed to be vesting any power in the District Magistrate which a statute does not vest in him. If he is of the opinion that the matter calls for a land encroachment proceeding, the proceeding can be conducted by the statutory authority only. In that event of the District Magistrate opining otherwise, he shall specifically deal with the statement made by respondent nos. 5 and 7 on oath in their counter affidavit. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)