IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18414 of 2009 1. SUBHUK LAL MANDAL S/O LATE NARAYAN MANDAL R/O VILL PATHKI,P.O. KASWA, P.S.AMARPUR, DISTT-BANKA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR BANKA 3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AMARPUR, DISTT- BANKA 4. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KUSHMAHA, P.S.AMARPUR, DISTT-BANKA 5. PROJECT OFFICER NREGA AMARPUR, P.S.AMARPUR, DISTT- BANKA 6. PANCHAYAT SEWAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KUSHWAHA, P.S.AMARPUR, DISTT-BANKA ----------- 02. 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by alleged encroachment over his lands bearing khata no. 39, plot no. 172, 15 and 52 and having an area of 80 decimals alleged to be utilized for construction of Tank/Bandh under the NREGA scheme. Learned counsel submits that there can be no interference with his properties except in accordance with law and after grant of due compensation. The petitioner is the lawful owner of the lands in question vide Settlement Case No. 55/1988- 89, when Parwana no. 01 was issued in the name of his father Narayan Mandal, Jamabandi No. 177 was created and rent has been paid continuously. The petitioner and his father have remained in continuous cultivating possession of the lands. 2 Rather than ask to the state to file a counter affidavit, keeping in mind that the project relates to a public scheme, but that the interest of the petitioner also has to be protected and balanced, the writ application is disposed with directions to the District Magistrate to examine the claims of the petitioner. The petitioner shall file a representation before the District Magistrate annexing documents in support of his claim. The District Magistrate will grant him a personal hearing. If satisfied that there has been interference with his lands contrary to law, the District Magistrate shall be at liberty to change the location or alignment of the tank excluding the lands of the petitioner. In that event, the petitioner shall be entitled to no compensation except restoration of the damage done to his lands. If the District Magistrate is of the opinion that the lands of the petitioner are required for the public project, he shall ensure that necessary compensation in accordance with law is paid to the petitioner. This may either be by way of a direct negotiation with the petitioner or by way of land acquisition proceeding. If land acquisition proceedings are proposed to be resorted to, it must be concluded within a maximum period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If it is not 3 concluded, the value of the land shall be deemed to be fixed on the date when the proceedings are finally concluded. In that event the liability for the additional liability to be incurred by the State may become answerable by the functionaries who delayed the same. This Court has been compelled to make this observation so as to ensure that the respondents complete land acquisition proceeding at an early date and the petitioner does not stand deprived of his land without authority of law when the compensation may be pegged under Section 4 to a much earlier date to the prejudice of the petitioner. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)