IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22492 of 2011 ====================================================== Mahesh Ram, s/o- Brahmdev Ram, r/o- village Virpur, P.S.- Raghopur, District- Vaishali (Hajipur) present address at Dusadhi Pakri, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbagh, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Patna, Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Patna. 3. Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Patna. 4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Gupta For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 2 16-12-2011 No body appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned A.C. to Advocate General is present. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner can be seen from paragraph 1 of the writ petition which reads as under: “1. That this writ petition is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ, order(s), direction(s) as well as commanding the Respondents to pay the compensation amount in lieu of the land of the petitioner, acquired by the Government of Bihar, for developing the Road without any notice as well as without any adopting the procedure of Land Acquisition Act which is illegal as well as unjustified in eye of law.” Learned counsel for the State handed in a copy of the Patna High Court CWJC No.22492 of 2011 (2) dt.16-12-2011 2 order passed in batch of writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 (Asaiser Sah and another versus The State of Bihar & Ors) and its analogous matter(s) which is taken on record and marked “X”. Learned counsel contends that this Court, dealing with the facts akin to the present case, has disposed of batch of writ petitions setting out in detail the manner in which the aggrieved person has to seek the remedy in such matter. On going through the aforesaid order dated 2.5.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010, this Court finds that those batch of writ petitions was/were disposed of with the following directions: “In the nature of the controversy, it is considered proper to give the following directions:- (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 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. Patna High Court CWJC No.22492 of 2011 (2) dt.16-12-2011 3 (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. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations and directions. On going through the pleadings on record and after hearing learned A.C. to Advocate General, this Court is satisfied that the present application be also disposed of in the terms in Patna High Court CWJC No.22492 of 2011 (2) dt.16-12-2011 4 which C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 and analogous writ petitions were disposed of. The operative portion of the order dated 2.5.2011 quoted hereinabove shall apply to the present case also. The application stands disposed of. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)