IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15924 of 2009 1. KAMLESH SHARMA, S/O LATE MANGAL SINGH, 2. RAM BAHADUR SHARMA, S/O LATE CHANDRADEEP SINGH, BOTH R/O SURYAGARHA, P.S.DHANARUA, DISTT- PATNA. ……PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA, 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE PROJECT MANAGER, NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. (NPCC LTD.) KIDWAIPURI, PATNA. 6. M/S DHANESHWAR NATH CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAJEEV RANJAN SINGH S/O ANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH LALIT NIKETAN COLONY, R/O SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR, HANUMAN NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. 7. RAMESHWAR MISHRA S/O LATE KAPILDEO MISHRA, R/O-VILL NEEMA, P.S. DHANARUA, P.O. NADWAN, DISTT- PATNA. 8. UPENDRA SHARMA S/O LATE SIDHESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL NEEMA, P.S.DHANARUA, P.O. NADWAN, DISTT- PATNA. …..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.-16. For the respondent no.5: Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Lalan Kumar, Advocate. WITH CWJC No.12055 of 2009 RAMESHWAR MISHRA, SON OF LATE KAPILDEO MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NEEMA, P.S. DHANARUA, P.O.NADWAN, DISTRICT-PATNA. - 2 - ….PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, PATNA. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. PROJECT MANAGER, NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. (N.P.C.C.LTD.), KIDWAIPURI, PATNA. 6. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI. ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.-16. For the respondent no.5: Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Lalan Kumar, Advocate. ----- 10. 07.05.2010 These two writ petitions being interlinked and interconnected were heard together and disposed of by a common order. The basic grievance in the public interest litigation which forms the subject matter of CWJC No.15924 of 2009 is that though roads are to be constructed under the scheme, namely, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sarak Yojna, yet the road, namely, from N.H.-83, Railway Bridge to Surajgarh, Sunderpur Dhanarua in the district of Patna is not being constructed on the ground that some private lands have come in the mid-way - 3 - belonging to respondents no.7 and 8, namely Rameshwar Mishra and Upendra Sharma, respectively. It is urged by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners it is the duty of the State Government under the scheme to make the land available and then only the Central Government shall release the fund for construction of the roads. It is put forth by him the availability of land means that it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to acquire the land as connectivity is imperative. Per contra, it is contended by Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel-16 that availability of the land means that the land belonging to the Government should be made available even by removing the encroachment and not to acquire the land. Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the land has to be made available and that is the duty of the State Government and there is no bar on the part of the State Government to acquire the land. It is his further submission that the roads are required to be constructed and any kind of impediment of the same has to be - 4 - removed by the State Government. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (for short, ‘NPCC’), the agency appointed by the Central Government, submitted that the road work has stopped because the same cannot be carried on as the private lands belonging to respondents no.7 and 8 have come in the way. Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWJC No.12055 of 2009 preferred by Rameshwar Mishra contended that his land cannot be taken without following the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and he has no objection if the land is acquired by taking recourse to the due process of law. Be it noted, in course of hearing, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel further canvassed that the petitioners are prepared to pay the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector after notification is issued by exercising emergency clause to the land owners. At this juncture, Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, - 5 - learned counsel submitted that such kind of a concession which is restricted to Land Acquisition Collector under the Land Acquisition Act is not an adequate commitment because there can be reference and award would be passed enhancing the quantum and which is subject to appeal under Section 54 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, we are only inclined to state that the State Government and the Central Government shall work in harmony and try to solve the problem where the land can be made available for construction of the road because the scheme has come into existence to establish connectivity amongst the many areas and it becomes sacrosanct duty of the State Government to provide the land. In view of the aforesaid, we are only inclined to direct the competent authority of the Central Government and the State Government shall hold a joint meeting and try to solve the problem by working in harmony. Be it noted, there has to be a road for connectivity is the sine qua non for the progress in a democracy. Let the meeting be held and proper decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed - 6 - today. It will be open to the said authorities to call the respondent no.5, the agency, where the agency can put forth its view and the difficulty faced and also can extend its cooperation. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)