IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5659 of 2010 1. Amrendra Nath Singh S/O Shri Kedar Nath Singh R/O Village And P.O.- Mai, P.S.- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 2. Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Late Jagdish Singh R/O Village And P.O.- Mai, P.S.- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 3. Harendra Kumar S/O Shri Lekhraj Singh R/O Village And P.O.- Mai, P.S.- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 4. Ashok Kumar S/O Late Lala Mahto R/O Village And P.O.- Mai, P.S. Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nalanda 4. The Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Organization, Hilsa, P.O. And P.S.- Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 5. The Circle Officer-Cum-Block Development Officer Hilsa, P.O. And P.S. Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda ---------------------------------- 03. 01.08.2011 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, assisting counsel to A.A.G. 1 for the State. This writ petition is another addition to the chain of writ petitions alleging encroachment by the State and its authorities in the garb of construction of State Highways under the Prime Minister Road Scheme. 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 the road from Hilsa-Bihar Sharif to Kapasya village in the District of Nalanda. 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 2 and the right vested in the petitioners 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 3 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 acquisition, direct negotiation or any other mode or method to justify lawful activity on the lands. (h) In cases where rival competing claims are 4 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 by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the directions and obligations cast upon the respective parties as contained in the order dated 2.5.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2490/2010 and analogous cases as also taken note of hereinabove. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)