IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.6364 of 2009 Basudeo Prasad, son of late Ramautar Prasad, Resident of Sitalpur, tola Sirsa Patti, P.S. Chakiya, district East Champaran .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, East Champaran 2. The Secretary, Tube Well (Irrigation) Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, East Champaran 4. The Executive Engineer, Tube Well Div., East Champaran, Motihari 5. The Junior Engineer, Tube Well Div., East Champaran, Motihari **** /2/ 20.05.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to get the land measured over which remodeled drainage has been constructed. Petitioner is not disputing this fact that for construction of drainage his land was acquired in the year 1958 by the State of Bihar and compensation for that acquired land has also been paid to him. His only grievance is that after acquisition of the land, drainage for irrigation was constructed in “V” shape in the year 1974-1975. Subsequently, this drainage got damaged, in the year 2006-2007 the respondents advertised a tender for remodeling of the drainage. Since, that time the petitioner is requesting the respondents to remove encroachment over his private land as after remodeling the drainage has been constructed not only on the acquired land, but, also on his private land. The petitioner has been repeatedly approaching the respondents with a prayer to get 2 the land measured so that it may be clarified whether remodeled drainage has been constructed only over the acquired land or private land of the petitioner has also been utilized for it. 3. This mater is being disposed off with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, East Champaran, Motihari (respondent no. 4) and the Junior Engineer, Tube Well Division, East Champaran, Motihari (respondent no. 5) to get the land measured within four weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. In case, it is found that the private land of the petitioner has not been utilized for construction of remodeled drainage the respondents have not to take any further action, but, in case, it is found that besides the acquired land of the petitioner, his private land has also been used for construction of remodeled drainage, in this situation, respondents 4 and 5 should proceed in accordance with law for acquisition of the utilized land and to make payment of compensation to the petitioner as provide under the Land Acquisition Act. All exercise must be completed within six months of the production/communication of the order. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)