IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7029 of 2008 BIR BAHADUR RAI @ BIHARI DAS, S/O LATE SHEO BARAI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHARAULI, P.O. BHARAULI, P.S. ANDAR, DISTRICT SIWAN. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTATE, SIWAN. 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, P.O. + P.S. + DISTRICT SIWAN. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE WELL, P.O. + P.S. + DISTRICT SIWAN. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ANDAR, P.O. + P.S. ANDAR, DISTRICT SIWAN. 6. OVERSEER, TUBE WELL, P.O. + P.S. ANDAR, DISTRICT SIWAN. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 9. 24.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Also perused the separate counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 4. Petitioner is the raiyat of the land detailed in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, which was the subject matter of land acquisition proceeding as would appear from the declaration bearing No.854 dated 18th September,1969, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of respondent no.2. Aforesaid declaration lapsed as would appear from the letter of the Additional Collector dated 1.3.1986, Annexure-D to the aforesaid counter affidavit. In view of the contents of the aforesaid Annexure-D, petitioner remained in - 2 - N.H./ possession of the lands in question throughout. Recently, the official respondent while executing National Employment Guarantee Plan-1 in the year 2008-09 while laying Bharauli Dharampur road in Bharauli Panchayat of Andar Block, District Siwan forcibly took possession of the aforesaid land from the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter lodged Andar P.S. Case No.85 of 2008 dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure-2) for the offence under sections 324, 306/34 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act against his own agnates who had given consent that the road over the lands be laid and aforesaid plan be executed in public interest. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of his own agnates against whom he had lodged F.I.R. bearing Andar P.S. Case No.85 of 2008 he is also at liberty to take action against them that they had no right to grant consent for laying the road over the said lands. With these observations, this writ application is dismissed. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)