IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6066 of 2009 1. SURESH PRASAD YADAV 2. LALITA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 07/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The writ application was filed on 6.5.2009 after serving two copies in the office of the learned Advocate General. One and a half years including an adjournment specifically for the purpose along with an interim order dated 14.5.2009, has not been considered sufficient by the respondents to file counter affidavit. The Court declines further adjournment for that purpose. The petitioners seek Mandamus to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of private lands identified as Plot No.179 measuring 4800 Sq.ft. and 2560 Sq.ft. respectively. It is submitted that there is no justification for the respondents to insist on construction of a public road through their raiyati lands when lands on the northern side of Plot No.179 i.e. Plot No.178 is a Gairmajarua land belonging to the State Government are available and upon which the road can easily be constructed. There has been no proceedings for acquisition of their lands and therefore any intrusion upon their lands contrary to - 2 - law is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners filed two representations on 22.12.2008 and 5.1.2009 highlighting these aspects. The representations were not considered leading to the filing of the present writ petition. On 14.5.2009 this Court directed that the possession of the petitioners over the lands in question shall not be disturbed except after acquisition. I.A. No.2048/10 has been filed thereafter. The petitioners assert that after the order dated 14.5.2009 the respondents on 25.12.2009 have again started dumping soil on the lands of the petitioners for construction of the road. Since the State has chosen to file no counter affidavit, the Court has no option but to dispose the writ application with the following directions:- (A) Let the petitioners file an application before the District Magistrate, Patna within a period of 30 days from today enclosing all documentary evidence in support of their claims that the lands were Raiyati in nature purchased by them. (B) The District Magistrate shall then furnish to the petitioners all documents and other information on which the State proposes to rely disputing the contentions of the petitioners to - 3 - justify any construction work as being upon public lands. (C) The petitioners shall be given reasonable opportunity to file their reply to the same. (D) The District Magistrate shall then fix a date for hearing and after hearing all parties pass a final reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order in the aforesaid manner. (E) The District Magistrate shall be required to deal with all issues of facts raised by the petitioner and the State in justification of their respective claims item wise, accepting or rejecting a particular factual stand. Needless to state that if the District Magistrate finds justification in the claim of the petitioners, necessary consequential orders for removal of any construction made on their lands shall be passed simultaneously. In that event, the District Magistrate is also required in his order to deal appropriately with the aspect of wastage of funds from the public exchequer and the liability for the same. Till such time that the District - 4 - Magistrate decides, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, when the respondents have failed to assist the Court, it is left with no option but to direct that the respondents shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioners. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)