IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5619 of 2005 5 28.1.2009 Dinanath Sharma, son of Late Daroga Sharma, resident of Mohalla- Jagat Narayan Lal Road, Kadamkuan, PSKadamkuan, District- Patna ....... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar, through its Commissioner and Secretary (Revenue and Land Reforms), Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Bihar, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Commissioner and Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Patna Regional Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna 5. The Collector, Patna 6. The District Land Acquisition officer, Patna. ...... RESPONDENTS -------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation. The prayer in this writ petition is that this Court in larger interest should direct the concerned respondents to restore Daggar, Pine, Aahar etc.and exclude such lands from the acquisition proceeding. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the land was acquired in the year 1985 and under the orders of this Hon’ble Court an exclusive complex for parking of trucks and other transport vehicles has been created and the complex has been named as ‘Transport Nagar”. Such transport complex 2 was created to ease traffic congestion in the town of Patna by creating such infrastructure adjacent to the town. That was done in public interest. According to the State, after acquisition, the land has been utilized for a planned creation of Transport Nagar in which there are large road and by-roads and it is not possible to demolish the entire infrastructure and to recreate the old Pine, Aahar etc. which might have existed when the nature of the land was agricultural. It has been submitted that the land has changed its nature and has now an urban complex which has been planned for the convenience of public. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider the prayer made in the writ petition to be in the public interest. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It goes without saying that if any individual rights are perceived to have been affected the concerned person may seek compensation etc. through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (J.N.Singh, J.) sk