IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17046 of 2009 1. PREMCHAND SINGH S/O LATE LAL BAHADUR SINGH R/V HABASPUR, P.S. SIGORI, DISTT.- PATNA (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL WORKS DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, RURAL WORKS DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPTT., PATNA CIRCLE, PATNA 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPTT., WORKS DIVISION, PATNA 8. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALIGANJ, PATNA 9. CIRCLE OFFICER PALIGANJ, PATNA 10. RAM KUMAR SINGH (CONTRACTOR) S/O LATE DEVNARAYAN SINGH PERMANENT ADDRESS- VILL.- MASAURHI KALA, P.O.- MATHIAPAR, DISTT.- PATNA, AT PRESENT- VIJAY NAGAR (SHIVPURAM), P.S.- DANAPUR, DISTT.- PATNA (BIHAR) ----------- 3 6.5.2010 By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the construction of road from remaining part of Janpur to Habaspur Border abutting Janpur Siwana , a road of about 1.80 Kms.) to the extent the said road encroached upon the petitioner’s raiyati land. Petitioner has annexed with this writ petition the reports of the Circle Officer and the Sub divisional Officer informing the district authorities that without consent of raiayt , the road should not be allowed to be constructed. This is pre supposed that the road would be encroaching upon the private land. The petitioner has categorically stated that his land 2 being plot nos. 1,2,3 and 12 are being encroached upon. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State with a survey plan. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the contractor . In the counter affidavit of the contractor, it is stated that Sarpanch and Gram Katchery had taken a decision that no one would oppose the construction of road as it would help the development of village. It is also stated that people had agreed to donate their lands but in the same counter affidavit it is stated that no private land is being encroached upon and that is now the stand of the State as well. Amongst the State and the contractor themselves there is a bundle of confusion. He refers to the survey map referring to which State wanted to submit that there existed a road (survey road), which would only being repaired. I have looked at the survey map. It does not show any road. One other strange fact is that the road is being made partly by covering “pyne”. Pyne is normally an aqua duct which is used by the villagers to irrigate their lands when water is available. I wonder whether the authorities have considered this aspect of the matter that by constructing this road they are destroying pyne, which is existing. Thus seen, it is clear that both the State and the contractor by their affidavits are trying to conceal more than what they are trying to disclose. Unless petitioner’s land is being encroached upon why should the petitioner come here . State has not controverted the reports of the Anchal Adhikari and the Sub-divisional Officer, which were 3 given much before the tenders were issued. These reports categorically stated that the permission of raiyat would be necessary before the road construction is given effect to. That is the grievance of the petitioner and the petitioner wants compensation of damage already done to his land and for restraining the State from proceeding further. Having considered the matter, in my view, as noted above, the only direction this Court can give is that the construction of the road shall be stopped forthwith in all aspects. The Collector-cum – District Magistrate would have to find time and himself survey the area. Before doing that he shall send a Government Amin , who would survey the area and the plot and point out whether any part of petitioner’s land is being encroached upon or being utilized for the purpose of construction of the road. Upon such measurement and survey, which should be made after due notice to the petitioner, if the Collector-cum- District Magistrate is satisfied that the petitioner’s land is not being encroached upon in any manner he would direct resumption of work but till such time he records his satisfaction, the work shall remain stayed. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)