IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18288 of 2009 1. SHEO KUMAR MAHATO S/O SHREE RAMCHANDRA MAHTO R/O VILL.- DEVHARA, P.S.- JAMHORE, DISTT.- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, AURANGABAD 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AURANGABAD 5. CIRCLE OFFICER, AURANGABAD, DISTT.- AURANGABAD 6. HEAD MASTER, NAVSHRIJIT PRIMARY SCHOOL, DEVHARA, P.S.- JAMHORE, DISTT.- AURANGABAD 7. SATENDRA MAHTO S/O RAMESH MAHTO R/O VILL.- DEVHARA, P.S.- JAMHORE, DISTT.- AURANGABAD ----------- 2. 11.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is the contention of the petitioner that he donated his lands by a registered deed in the name of the Governor of Bihar on 7.9.1995 for construction of a Primary school on Khata NO. 8, Plot No. 54, having an area of 6 ¼ decimal in Mouza Devhara (North), District- Aurangabad. The location was found suitable by the authorities on enquiry notwithstanding which respondent no. 7 had wrongly persuaded the District Superintendent of Education who has directed shifting the location of the school preferable to the Mukhiya on 16.10.2009. The donation by the petitioner of his lands for a school is one aspect of the matter. The location of the school is another aspect of the matter. The two may coincide or may not. The location is a matter of 2 executive policy as held in 2001 (10) SCC 75 not amenable to the jurisdiction of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India specially when the procedure is regulated by the statutory requirements of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. The authorities appear to be completely oblivious of the fact that under Section 73(17)(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, it is only the Zila Parashad which has the executive power to decide the location for the establishment of the primary school. The statute provides a procedure and the designated authority for the same. Learned counsel for the State submits that perhaps construction of the school has commenced at the new location. If the construction is in violation of the statutory provisions without any resolution of the Zila Parashad, it cannot be qualified as legal. If the petitioner has donated his lands for the specific purpose and it is not intended to be utilized for that purpose, the State is required to re-convey to the petitioner the lands forthwith and if any construction has been made by the respondents it is required to be removed at their own cost as the lands cannot be utilized for any other purpose except with the consent of the petitioner. 3 The submission that the Panchayat Samiti has resolved for the location in favour of his lands shall not bring any relief to the petitioner, as under Section 47(14) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti is limited to promotion of primary education, construction, repair and maintenance of the building only, and not its establishment. The writ application is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)