IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5875 of 2010 1. DAYA SHANKAR PRASAD SHARMA S/O LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD SHARMA R/O VILL. AND POST- BHATAUNA, P.S.- KARZA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION, COMBINED BUILDING, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION COMBINED BUILDING, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION, COMBINED BUILDING, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION, COMBINED BUILDING, MUZAFFARPUR 7. BHENSAR CHANAKYA J V, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE- PLOT NO. 28, 1ST FLOOR, NAVODAYA COLONY, ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 450034 8. PROJECT ENGINEER CUM BRANCH MANAGER BHENSAR CHANAKYA J V, BRANCH OFFICE- OPPOSITE KESHAV PALACE, ABOVE BRAJ DENTAL CLINIC, KHAJPURA, PATNA-14 *** For the petitioner : Mr Shambhu Nath, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Satyeshwar Prasad, AC to SC 19 *** 4 14.05.2010 The petitioner had come to this Court apprehending that while constructing a village road under the Pradhanmantri Gramin Sadak Yojna, the road was to go across petitioner’s land without any acquisition or without petitioner’s surrendering the land for construction of such a road, because for such a construction, the scheme predicates voluntary surrender of land by villagers. He was not ready to do the same. Being unable to stop the authorities, the writ petition was filed. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that pursuant to interim order of this Court, all work was stopped. In his presence, measurement was taken. 2 Petitioner, in his own handwriting, has given (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit) that as per measurement done, no part of his land is to be encroached but in the said report, it is mentioned that three TBM (Temporary Bench Mark) pillars have been affixed on his land. These pillars are affixed only to facilitate levelling of the road which are then removed after the road construction is over. Petitioner asserts that those pillars have not yet been removed. State undertakes to remove them immediately if not already removed. Petitioner now asserts that he has bona fide apprehension that once the work resumes, to fill up earth for raising the road, they would dig up petitioner’s land. That would be done either by the State through its Agency or by the private contractor and too without compensation. Considering the aforesaid and the reasonableness of the apprehension, I direct that petitioner’s land would not be used for any purpose by the State or the contractor. Not a cubic inch of mud/earth shall be excavated from petitioner’s land on either side of the road for construction and if upon complaint, it is found that the contractor has excavated mud/earth from petitioner’s land, the contractor’s contract would be liable to be cancelled and all payments forfeited. That would be assured by the district administration in the strictest sense of the manner. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)