Anima Hazarika, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6 and Ms. R. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, PWD appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Making grievances against the construction of road on the patta land Under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (for short PMGSY), the petitioners, both in WP (C) No. 910/2010 (Dewan Jamsher Ali & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) and WP (C) No. 1187/2010 (Tuta Mia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.), have approached this Court seeking direction in the nature of Mandamus not to use the land of the petitioners situated in Dag No. 328, Patta No. 155 in WP (C) No. 910/2010 and Dag No. 335, 327 Patta No. 70 and 54 in WP (C) No. 1187/2010, Mouza Paka, village Koyakuchi pathar, district Barpeta. Relief sought for in both the writ petitions being identical, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. WP (C) No. 910/2010 came up for consideration before this Court on 5.2.2010, wherein this Court passed the following orders:

Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. J. Patowari, learned standing counsel for the Public Works Department appears for respondents 2, 3, & 4. Respondents 1, 5 & 6 are represented by Mr. H. Rahman, learned Government Advocate.

The petitioners claim that a village road from Kayakuchi Pather to Nashatra via Helacharpam is being constructed under the PMGSY Scheme over the Patta land of the petitioner, without taking any steps for acquisition of the said land and payment of compensation to the Patta holders.

In view of above, let a Notice returnable on 22.2.2010 be issued to enable the Government Counsels to obtain instructions.

In the mean time status quo on the construction over the land of the petitioners measuring 4 Bighas, under Dag No. 328, patta No. 155, Mouza Paka, village Kayakuchi Pather in the District of Barpeta be maintained.

3. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the officials of the State respondent filed their pleadings in the form of an affidavit whereof the stands in the both writ petitions are identical. The stand of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as averred in the affidavit are that the construction of road from Helacharpora to Nasatra via Pethandipam including cross drainage works are carried out under the supervision of the answering department under the PMGSY (Regular) Ph-(VII) for the year 2007-08, package No. AS-01-74 which road is 3 km in length, wherefore the construction/development of the road is carried out in the existing road and not over the land as alleged. Moreover, as per the Detailed Project Report ('DPR' for short) and the Right of Way (ROW for short) of the existing track is 12 meter and there is no necessity of acquiring the petitioner's land and similarly, the question of destroying the movable and immovable properties belonging to the petitioners does not arise, since no construction is carried out over the petitioner's plot of land.

4. The stand of the respondent No. 5 in both the cases are same wherein the respondent No. 5 contended that the bend as stated at paragraph-3 of the writ petition is existed in the original i.e. Koyakuchi Pathar to Pathadi Road and the bend road is utilized for movement of thela, rickshaw, bicycle, motorcycle and pedestrians also and the construction of the road is being carried out on the original existing road, hence there is no question to acquire land.

5. WP (C) No. 910/2010 came up for consideration after the pleadings were completed and the Court after hearing the parties on 7.10.2010 passed the following orders:

Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Phukan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. Also heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The claim of the petitioners in this writ petition is th