IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9476 of 2011 Md.Mohsin Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2 21.7.2011 The issue involved in this case is alleged intrusion on the raiyati land of a citizen for construction of road without following procedure under the law. Both the State Government as well as the Central Government has promulgated various schemes for construction of road for strengthening the infrastructure required for communication and transportation. The petitioner states that 2.5 decimals of his land appertaining to Khata No.16, Khesra No.289 of Mauza Kusmahwa, Anchal Dhaka in the district of East Champaran has been forcibly take over for construction of road. He submits that no land can be take over forcibly without due payment of compensation or taking resort to proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act or any other law relevant for the purpose. The petitioner had made a representation before the S.D.O., Dhaka, East Champaran. Counsel for the State submits that many similar matters have been disposed of by a common order dated 2.5.2011 passed in 2490 of 2010 (Asaiser Ram & anr Vs State of Bihar & Ors) and other analogous cases. In the aforesaid case this court after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the matter with certain directions which are being reproduced hereinbelow: “In the nature of controversy, it is considered proper to give the following directions: 2 (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 supported by documentary evidence. The District Magistrate shall be under no obligation to consider simple representations 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 acquisitions, 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 3 KHAN 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 intrusions, not more than two feet, it shall not merit any consideration or enquiry”. The Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 705 observed that right of property though it is not a fundamental right but is a constitutional and human right. It was further observed that the courts must make an endeavour to strike a balance between public interest on the one hand and protection of a constitutional right to hold property, on the other. Again in the case of Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 649 the Apex Court observed as follows: “42. The right to property is no longer a fundamental right. But still it is a constitutional right. Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right. The procedures laid down for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously complied with”. As the issue is common, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the directions given by this court by order dated 2.5.2011 passed in C.W.J.C.No.2490 of 2010 (Asaiser Ram & anr Vs State of Bihar & Ors) and other analogous cases. (S.P. Singh,J) 4