IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7161 of 2010 1. Samir Chandra Suman, S/O Shri Harnedra Prasad Sinha, R/O Village - Fenhara,P.S.- Fenhara, District- East Champaran. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari 3. The Superintendent Of Police, East Champaran,Motihari. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pakari Dayal, District- East Champaran. 5. The Officer In Charge, P.S.- Fenhara, Block -Pakari Dayal, District- East Champaran. 6. The Executive Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Sadak Yojna, Motihari,East Champaran. 7. Md. Sambil, S/O Seikh Kamaluddin, R/O Village+P.O.+P.S- Fenhara, District- East Champaran. ----------- 2 28.09.2011 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Raj, learned A.C. to G.P.XI for the State. In the series of writ petitions filed in this Court, with the petitioners alleging encroachment on their private land by the State and its authorities in the garb of constructions of State Highways under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna, the present writ petition is an addition thetereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the State and its functionaries have encroached over the land of the petitioner in the matter of construction of road under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna. It is the case of the petitioner that although there is a public road just by the side of the land of the petitioner in existence since more than 75 to 80 years the respondent in the process of construction of road under the Yojna aforesaid, are trying to encroach over his lands bearing khata No. 219 Plot No. 1362 having an area 1 bigha 8 kathas and 9 dhoors which had been purchased by the grand father of the petitioner through registered sale deeds as back as on 30.05.1935. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities in the process of construction of the road under the Yojna in question are encroaching on his property 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 in the matters of such eventualities and also the right vested in the petitioner to obtain damages/compensation for the alleged encroachment. A batch of writ petitions came up for consideration before this Court in a case arising from C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 and other cases and which was disposed of vide order passed on 02.05.2011 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 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 3 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 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.” It is not in dispute 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 other cases. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection to the disposal of the writ petition in terms of the directions passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 and other cases. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the directions and obligations cast upon the respective 4 parties as contained in the order dated 2.5.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2490/2010 and analogous cases as also taken note of hereinabove. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)