IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6369 of 2010 1. Shyamanand Singh S/O Late Babulal Singh R/O Vill Mirzapur, P.S. Asarganj, Distt-Munger Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Collector Munger 2. The Collector Munger 3. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Bailey Road, Patna 4. Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Munger, Division, Munger 5. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Munger 6. M/S Narayani Construction , Munger, Through The Executive Director ---------------------------------- 2. 09.9.2011. Heard Mr. Madan Prasad Singh-2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Learned Assisting Counsel to AAG-10 appearing on behalf of the State. This writ petition is another addition to the chain of writ petitions alleging encroachment by the State and its authorities in the Road Construction Department over riayati land of the petitioners’ in the process of construction of State Roads and Highways. In so far as the present case is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents in the process of construction of a Gramin Road, have encroached over the different plots of the petitioner 2 situated at Mauza Makwa, P.S.Asarganj, District Munger. He submits that despite service of legal notice upon the District Magistrate, Munger in this regard and on getting no response, this writ petition has been filed. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents, without invoking the provisions of the Bihar Land Acquisition Act and without making payment of any compensation, have encroached over the land of the petitioner without following the due process of law. It is contended that although the petitioner has been deprived of his property without following the process of law, the State and its functionaries have slept over their obligations and the right vested in the petitioner to obtain damages/compensation for the alleged encroachment. A large number of writ petitions raising similar issues were heard analogous by a bench of this court.Each of the petitioners complained of compulsory acquisition of their lands by the respondent authorities under one scheme or the other without following due process of law, as in the present case. The said batch of cases arising out of C.W.J.C.No.2490 of 2010 and other 3 cases were disposed of by a bench of this court on 2.5.2011 after hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Additional Advocate General No.1 appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries. The learned Single Judge upon examination of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution, the obligation of the State to respect the same as well as duty of the State in ensuring convenient pathway to the citizens, has disposed of the writ petition by issuing certain directions which reads as follows: “(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 4 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 5 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 intrusions, not more than two feet, it shall not merit any consideration or enquiry.” Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue raised in the present writ petition is fully governed by the judgment and order passed in the batch of writ petitions arising from C.W.J.C.No.2490 of 2010 and have no objection to the disposal of the present writ petition in terms of the orders passed in the said batch of cases. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the 6 directions and obligations cast upon the respective parties as contained in the order dated 2.5.2011 passed in C.W.J.C.No.2490 of 2010 and analogous cases as also taken note of hereinabove. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)