IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.4911 of 2010 Shashi Bhushan Rai S/O Roshan Mahto R/O Vill.- Laharnia, P.S.- Chandan, Distt.- Banka. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Home Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur, Distt. Bhagalpur 5. The District Magistrate, Banka, Distt. Banka 6. The Superintendent Of Police, Banka, Distt. Banka 7. The Circle Officer, Chandan, Distt.- Banka ------------ 3. 09.8.2011. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Arjun Prasad Singh, Assisting Counsel to SC-2 for the State. The writ petition was filed complaining of illegal encroachment on the land of the petitioner by the district administration of Banka by carrying out the construction of road and bridge (Pulia) on his raiyati land bearing Khesra No.82 of Khata no.34, Khesra no.101 of khata no.38 and khesra no.93 of khata no.42. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the encroachment is being carried out sans any scheme of the State Govternment without his consent and without drawing any acquisition proceedings. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.6 the Superintendent of 2 Police, Banka in which the factum of construction of the road and bridge (Pulia) thereon has been admitted. It is stated that the road was being constructed for facilitating the passage as the area was lonely and thus crime prone and naxal affected. It is stated that the road is being constructed with the consent of the local people including the petitioner and from the contribution made by the local villagers. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes this position and submits that the road in question is being constructed by the fund allotted by the local M.P. of the area and also denies giving consent for usage of his portion of land as described hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the possession of the portion of his land, which was being encroached upon for construction of the road, has since been taken back by him and to that extent, he has no further grievance. He further submits that the grievance of the petitioner is now only to the extent of encroachment for the purpose of construction of the small bridge (Pulia), which is being constructed without his consent or without there 3 being any acquisition proceeding by the State in this regard. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the respondent no.5 the District Magistrate, Banka together with the full details of his plot, its description together with a map showing the extent of encroachment by the respondents for the purpose of construction of the bridge (Pulia). The District Magistrate, Banka would consider the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is able to satisfy the District Magistrate, Banka that the construction of the Pulia is being made on a portion of his land, without his consent and without any acquisition proceeding, he may issue proper interim order protecting the interest of the petitioner. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)