IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5564 of 2010 1. Raju Prasad Mehta s/o Shri Gulab Chand Mehta, r/o village - and P.O. Bhupatti, P.s. Babu Barhi, Madhubani 2. Randhir Kumar Khanna, s/o Ram Nath Khanna, r/o village, & P.O. Kharabani, P.S. Babu – Barhi, Madhubani 3. Ram Prakash Sahu, s/o late Kharan Sahu, r/o village & P.O. Bhufatti, P.S. Babu Barhi, Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Technical Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, West Koshi Canal Division, Darbhanga 5. The Superintending Engineer, West Koshi Canal Division, Darbhanga 6. The Executive Engineer, West Koshi Canal Division, Madhubani 7. District Magistrate, Madhubani 8. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Canal Division, Madhubani 9. The Block Development Officer cum Circle Officer, Babubarhi, Madhubani ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Bankey Bihar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sahilendra Prasad, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, SC XXI Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, AC to SC XXI 2 5/4/2010 In this public interest litigation the petitioners belonging to the villages of Bupatti and Pirhi prayed for issuance of a writ prohibiting the functionaries of the State not to construct third Canal in Pirhi Jalwaha. 2 On a perusal of the writ petition, it is not clear on what basis the writ petition has been filed. It is submitted by Mr. Bankey Bihari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners approached the Anchala Adhikari not to acquire the land of the aforesaid villages for the purpose of construction of Canal. On a query being made whether any notification has been issued for acquisition of land, Mr. Singh fairly stated that no notification has yet been issued. At this juncture, Mr. P.K.Singh, learned counsel for the State, submitted that whether notification has been issued or not is not clear as no such document has been brought on record. Be that as it may, we are disposed to think at this juncture the grievance that has been put forth is actually premature. If notification is issued it is open to the petitioner to assail the same as per law. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 3