IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8821 of 2010 Ram Babu Rai S/O Jagarnath Rai R/O Vill.- Morshandi, P.S.- Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 3. Land Equisition Officer, Muzaffarpur 4. Project Director, National High Way Authority of India, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur 5. Project Manager, P.C.H. Pakage No. 12, Nariar P.O. and P.S. Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ---------------------------- 03. 03.11.2011 Heard Mr. Uma Shankar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner . The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the authorities of the National Highway Authority of India, respondent nos. 4 and 5 herein in utilizing the lands of the petitioner as fully described in the writ petition. The total area of the plots in question admeasuring five acres 74 decimals, is situated in village Morshandi, Motipur in the district of Muzaffarpur. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent authorities of the National Highway Authority of India in the process of construction of Highway, have utilized the land of the petitioner. It is stated that neither any acquisition proceeding has been undertaken by the authority nor any compensation for the damage caused has been provided by the National Highway Authority of India. It is submitted that repeated representations having not been positively responded to by the respondent authorities, hence the present writ petition. 2 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, the Project Director and in which blame has been shifted on the Contractor. It is contended that the respondent authority is not liable for payment of compensation to the petitioner for cutting of the sand/earth from his land by the Contractor. The contention advanced on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India is only taken to be rejected for the reason that it is entirely the responsibility of the National Highway Authority of India to ensure that the Contractor carries out the work as assigned to him without encroaching upon the raiyati land of any person including the petitioner. Right to hold property is a constitutional right and cannot be taken away without authority of law. In the present case it is the contention of the petitioner and not disputed that the land in question of the petitioner has been damaged by cutting of earthen soil in the process of construction of National Highway. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various provisions of the National Highway Authority of India Act to canvass that there are sufficient provisions under the enactment for payment of compensation and that the damage having been caused to the property of the petitioner, the National Highway Authority of India cannot shirk from its responsibility to recompense the petitioner. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the stand of the respondents as is 3 manifests from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the respondent no. 4, the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur together with the details of the land which has been damaged in the process of construction of the National Highway, by the authorities of the National Highway Authority of India and/or their executing agency, with reference to the statutory provisions obliging the authority of the National Highway Authority of India to pay compensation. Needless to add that any such representation filed, shall be considered by the respondent no. 4 Project Director, NHAI, Muzafarrpur and disposed of by a speaking order, to be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of such representation. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)