IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4799 of 2010 Deoki Ram Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 03. 19.07.2011 Heard Mr. Sudish Kumar for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar Arun for respondent no. 6 and Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, assisting counsel to A.A.G. 2 for the State. The writ petition was filed complaining deviation from the actual plan for construction of the road passing through village– Gausnagar-Govindpur in the district of Nalanda under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna. It was submitted that the respondent no. 6, being the agency entrusted with the construction of the road in question were deviating from the original road map and the Contractor was trying to alter the actual route of the road deviating from the plan and which would encroach on the property of the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6, the Executive Agency and in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the local villagers have constructed a temple in the midway of the Gausnagar- Govindpur road and several houses of the local villagers have encroached on the road alignment on the government land which is in the nature of gairmajarua rasta. It is stated that although the District Magistrate, Nalanda was informed about the alleged encroachment by the local villagers by construction of houses 2 and temple by the respondent no. 6 through letter dated 9.12.2009 and again on 12.1.2010 but in absence of necessary administrative help from the District administration, construction of road upto 300 meters could not be completed. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that the complaint made in the present writ petition is only an apprehension of the petitioner and there is no question of the respondent no. 6 deviating from the route as per the approved D.P.R. map. It is contended that it is because of the villagers that respondent no. 6 has abandoned the construction of road upto 300 meters in the village concerned. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent no. 6 in their counter affidavit, nothing survives for consideration by this Court. However, in view of the categorical statement made by the respondent no. 6 in the counter affidavit regarding absence of administrative help by the district administration at Nalanda resulting in non- construction of 300 meters of the road in question, the District Magistrate, Nalanda would be well advised to consider the matter and take appropriate steps as he finds desirable for completion of the road in question as per the original D.P.R. map. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)