IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4207 of 2010 Ram Kumar Verma Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3 10.08.2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Sharaf, learned A.C. to S.C.16 appears on behalf of the State and informs this Court that he has not yet received the instructions from the respondents. The writ has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay a suitable compensation for encroachment over his land bearing Plot Nos. 1089, 1190, 1590, 1515, 1554,1554, 1589,2464 and Plot Nos. 1598 situated along side the Fatuha- Saidpur Chowk to Chandasi Path, admeasuring about 20,219 sqft. which is said to be about 15 kathas, for the purpose of widening of the road connecting Fatuha- Saidpur Chowk to Candasi Path in the District of Patna. A further grievance has been raised by the petitioner that about 1,41,533 sqft. of soil has also been extracted from the said land and used for the purpose of construction of road in question. It is stated that despite the petitioner having raised his grievance before the respondent No.4, the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division on 18.12.2009 and also subsequently and getting no response, he filed the writ petition in question. Despite the matter having remained pending before this Court since 09.03.2010 and adjournment having been granted to the 2 learned State counsel on 04.07.2011, no response has been filed by the State and its functionaries. It is the contention of the petitioner that appropriate provisions has been made under the Pradhan Matri Gram Sarak Yojana for acquisition of lands required for widening and strengthening of road and for payment of compensation but no such steps have been taken by the respondent authorities, has forced the petitioner to seek his relief before this Court by way of the present writ petition. A batch of writ petitions raising similar issues came up for consideration before this Court in a case arising from C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 and other cases and which was disposed of vide order passed on 02.05.2011 after hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Additional Advocate General No. 1 appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries. The learned Single Judge upon examination of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution, the obligation of the State to respect the same as well as duty of the State in ensuring convenient pathway to the citizens, has disposed of the writ petition by issuing certain directions which reads as follows:- “(a) Any petitioner aggrieved by the alleged forcible intrusion into his lands for any of the aforesaid purposes may represent before the District Magistrate within a period of four weeks of the present order. The time period shall necessarily vary where a person has approached this Court in any other writ application to be computed from the date of the direction therein. In any other case, this period has to be computed from the date of such intrusion. (b) If the application is not filed within the time prescribed, the District Magistrate shall be 3 under no obligation to hold such enquiry, but without prejudice to the other legal rights. (c) The representation must be supported by documentary evidence. The District Magistrate shall be under no obligation to consider simple representations without supporting documents in the form of a roving enquiry. (d) The District Magistrate shall either enquire into the matter himself or designate a senior government functionary to hold the enquiry. The applicant shall be informed of the date and time of enquiry. Any measurements shall be taken in his presence only. If there have been any earlier enquiries and reports, it shall necessarily have to be taken into consideration. (e) Any construction work done during the pendency of such enquiry shall be entirely at the risk and responsibility of the respondents to abide by the final orders that may be passed in such enquiry. (f) If the allegations of any forcible intrusion are found to be correct, the District Magistrate shall take appropriate action to forthwith desist and to restore the lands in an appropriate manner. (g) Nothing in the present order shall preclude the State Government, if it so desires, to proceed under the laws of the land for acquisition, direct negotiation or any other mode or method to justify lawful activity on the lands. (h) In cases where rival competing claims are made with regard to ownership of the lands involving complicated questions of title, quite obviously, the executive enquiry shall not be competent to decide the same. In that event the contesting parties shall have to approach the competent civil court for appropriate orders. (i) In cases where there have been negligible intrusions, not more than two feet, it shall not merit any consideration or enquiry.” Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of the writ petition in terms of the directions and obligations cast upon the respondent authorities as contained in the order dated 02.05.2011, passed in the batch of the writ petition arising from C.W.J.C.No.2490 of 2010 and other analogous cases. Considering the circumstances, the writ petition is 4 disposed of in terms of the directions and obligation cast upon the respective parties as contained in order dated 02.05.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 and other analogous cases as also taken note of herein above. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)