IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10826 of 2003 Most. Ahilya Devi, Wife of Late Bhubneshwar Pathak, Resident of Village Budhi Ban, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar thorugh Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Old Secretariate, Patna. 2. District Collector, Begusarai. 3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai. 4. Zila Parishad, Begusarai, through its Chairman. 5. Chairman, Zila Parishad, Begusarai. 6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Begusarai. 7. District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Begusarai. 8. Anchla Adhikari, Teghra, Block, District- Begusarai. -------- Respondents ----------- 9 12.10.2009 Heard Mr. Sachchidanand Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows : - "(I). To command the Respondents not to disturb or interfere in any manner with the rightful title, possession and interest of the petitioner and her sons with respect to the land in question appertaining to:- khata no. S.P. no. Area Boundary 84 333(Part) 0.5.153/4 Dhur N-Sarup Lal Pathak S-Madhav Pathak E-Mahabir Pathak W-Ramdeo Pathak of village-Bhagwatpur Tiyai, Police Station-Bhagwanpur, District-Begusarai. (II). The Respondents be directed that if they require the land in question in public interest they should proceed in accordance with law of the land and after passing necessary orders 2 by the competent authority for such acquisitions they must pay full compensation at the prevailing market rate in the area and not to acquire by display of Force in the Arbitrary manner as they are doing and attempting to do. (III). The Respondents be directed to remove the bricks laid down on the land of the petitioner without lawful acquisition of the same. (IV). It is further prayed that Respondents be restrained from making construction of Road touching and effecting the petitioner's land in question referred above till final disposal of the instant writ application in the interest of justice and fair play." Despite repeated indulgence given by this Court, the Counsel for State till date has not been able to bring anything on record to show that the utilization of land of the petitioner for construction of road was followed by payment of compensation. The plea that such utilization of land was done with the consent of the son of the petitioner is neither here nor there inasmuch as there is no document to prove the same. In this context, the reliance placed on 3 a proceeding of scheme as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit is hardly an explanation which can be accepted, inasmuch as, in the said resolution it is nowhere mentioned that while agreeing for construction on land the petitioner had also given consent for acquisition of her portion of land without claiming payment of compensation. Article 300A of the Constitution of India very clearly lays down that no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law. Therefore, the acquisition of land for public purpose, which definitely a construction of road is, has to be strictly governed by the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894. That being so, as the taking over possession of land of petitioners by the Respondents is admitted and the land of the petitioner has been utilized for construction of road, either the authority should pay the compensation for the portion of land of the petitioner or in alternative vacate the land by restoring the possession back to the petitioner. Such exercise must be completed 4 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)