2023 Supreme(Pat) 506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
Fekan Singh Son of Ram Swarth Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1551 of 2023
Decided on : 16-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Prasad
Land cannot be utilized without consent or acquisition proceedings, and construction in public interest requires proper acquisition in accordance with the law.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Road Construction - C.W.J.C. - 592 of 2016 - 26.2.2016 - 12.9.2022 -
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ application to set aside an order directing the removal of a road section connecting a village to the main road. The petitioner argued that the road was essential for the village's connectivity and that the land was donated for its construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the landowner did not consent to the road construction, and no acquisition proceedings were initiated. The Collector's order to remove the road was upheld, as no illegality was found.
Issues: Dispute over road construction on private land without consent or acquisition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Land cannot be utilized without consent or acquisition proceedings. Construction in public interest requires proper acquisition in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application for the following relief(s):-
“(i) To issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order to set aside the order contained in Memo No. 1867 dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-6) passed Respondent No. 6 in Miscellaneous Case No. 22/2016 whereby he has directed to remove/demolish a certain section of the only available road through which the entire village comprising more than 90 families, is connected with the main road or outer world and therefore, the aforesaid road is the lifeline of the said village.
(ii) To issue consequential Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order commanding Respondents particularly, Respondents No. 6 & 9 to immediately acquire the requisite land of Respondent No. 15 in-order to seamless functioning of the aforesaid road, as indicated in the Order dated 26.02.2016 passed in CWJC No. 592 of 2016 (Annexure-1) filed by the Respondent No. 15.
(iii) To issue consequential Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order commanding Respondents particularly, Respondents No. 6 to 15 to henceforth, restrain from damaging the aforesaid road.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that since time immemorial the villagers of village Harichhapra, P.S. -Dumra, District – Sitamarhi were using a pavement sidewalk for their commutation to reach the main road.
4. All the raiyats of both the sides of the road including the respondent no. 15 agreed to donate their portion of land in order to construct a permanent road 10-12 ft. wide for seamless communication for all including ambulance etc. Accordingly the road was constructed in the year 2015.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 15 preferred C.W.J.C. no. 592 of 2016 in this Court which was disposed of by order dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure-1) in the following terms:-
“Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the same is being disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, by filing a representation along with copies of the documents in support of his claim. In such case, let the District Magistrate, Madhubani examine it and take a decision in accordance with law as to whether the land of the petitioner has been or is being utilized for construction of the road concerned or not. If it is found that the petitioner's land has been or being utilized for construction of road without his consent then that should be stopped immediately. Construction made, if any, should be removed forthwith so that the land could be brought to its original nature and form and possession should be delivered back to the petitioner. If the land is required to be used as such in public interest then a decision would have to be taken to initiate a proceeding for acquisition of the land in accordance with law. If claim of the petitioner does not find favour of the District Magistrate then a reasoned and speaking order would be required to be passed and the same should immediately be communicated to the petitioner. It is expected that a decision would be taken within the period of three months from the date of filing of representation along with a copy of this order by the petitioner before the District Magistrate concerned.
In case the State authorities decide to acquire the land in accordance with law then they would require to take necessary steps and should conclude the proceeding within a period of six months.”
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 26.2.2016 passed by this Court, the respondent no. 15 filed Misc. Case before the learned Collector, Sitamarhi, which was registered as Misc. Case no. 22 of 2016 and has been disposed of by order impugned dated 12.9.2022 (Annexure-6). It is against this order dated 12.9.2022 that the instant application has been preferred for the reliefs prayed for hereinabove.
7. L