Allowed

Manisha Sinha and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Jan 2015CWJC/16479/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners challenged road construction on their raiyati lands under PMGSY. The Patna High Court directed authorities to refrain from building roads on the plaintiffs' plots due to lack of consent and availability of alternative public land nearby, allowing the petition with directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to refrain from constructing a public road on Plot No. 1607 of Khata No. 58 in Mauza Dehri village-Birjumilki, allowing exercise on Plot No. 3105 which is public land.

Manisha Sinha and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16479 of 2014

¶3

====================================================== 1. Manisha Sinha W/o Sri Puranjay Kumar Singh 2. Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh S/o Late Bidya Binod Sinha

¶4

Radhey Raman Singh S/o Late Sia Lal Singh

¶5

Arun Kumar S/o Late Indradeo Mistri All R/o of Village + P.O. - Birjumilki, P.S. - Harnaut, District- Nalanda.

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Harnaut, Nalanda.

¶7

The Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Harnaut Nalanda. 5. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, Nalanda. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda at Biharsharif, Nalanda. 7. The Circle Officer, Harnaut, District- Nalanda.

¶8

Suresh Kumar, Proprietor M/S Kumar Construction, Station Road, P.S. - Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sateshwar Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dipak Sahay Jamuar A.C. to AAG-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶10

4 22-01-2015 Heard Mr. Sateshwar Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Sahay Jamuar A.C. to AAG 6 for the State.

¶11

The petitioners four in number have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of these petitioners over their raiyati lands, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition and runs as follows:

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2014 (4) dt.22-01-2015

¶13

2 / 5

¶14

“1) Petitioner No.1-Plot No. 1607, Khata No. 58, Area 12

¶15

dec.

¶16

2) Petitioner No.-2-Plot No.-1607, khata No.-58, Area 13 ½ dec. & Plot No. 1608 (part), Khata No. 58, Area 1 dec.

¶17

3) Petitioner No.-3-Plot No. -1607, Khata No. -58, Area 12 dec.

¶18

4) Petitioner No.-4---Plot No.1659 & 1598 Khata No.-12, Area 37 dec.

¶19

Situated at Thana No.- 208, Mauza- Dehri, VillBirjumilki, P.S. Harnut, District-Nalanda”

¶20

The grievance of the petitioners is that in the process of construction of a village road under the Prime Minister Gramin Sarak Yojana the respondent authorities in the District of Nalanda proceeded to construct a public road which passes through the mid of the plot bearing Khata No. 58 Khesra No. 1607. It is the claim of these petitioners that the said plot is in the nature of „gairmazarua Malik‟ and was settled with the forefather of these petitioners and whereafter it has been entered in the revenue records as well as in Register- II maintained by the Revenue Department. It is further the contention of these petitioners that they have built their dwellings on this plot and any attempt by the respondents to construct a public road passing through the said plot would not only interfere with their possession over these plots but would also result in demolition in part of their dwellings.

¶21

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Nalanda and a separate counter affidavit has been filed

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2014 (4) dt.22-01-2015

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

on behalf of the Principal Secretary of the Rural Works Department.

¶25

The facts noted and the grievance raised are practically admitted by these official respondents however it is submitted that a village road is already running on the plot and that no demolitions to any part of the construction has taken place. While making such submission it has also mentioned that the proposed public road is yet to be constructed on the plot.

¶26

Mr. Prasad has referred to paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Nalanda to submit that even when the District authorities are confirmed that nature of land is „gairmazarua Malik‟ and has been settled with the forefathers of these petitioners and whereafter the names have entered in the survey khatiyan as well as in the Register-II, the copies of which are placed at Annexures-E and F yet an attempt has been made to justify the construction of road on grounds that a village road is already existing.

¶27

Learned counsel has also referred to the map enclosed in the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate to submit that even when there is „gairmazarua aam‟ land available with the respondents at Plot No. 3105 which was subject matter of a writ proceedings in C.W.J.C. No. 21726 of 2012 and C.W.J.C. No.

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2014 (4) dt.22-01-2015

¶29

4 / 5

¶30

17745 of 2013 which were filed for removal of encroachments made on the said plot and pursuant to the directions of this Court, the encroachment from the said public land has been removed and which is available with the respondents for construction of a road, they have unnecessarily intruded into the raiyati rights of the petitioners to cause undue interference.

¶31

Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to the orders of this Court present at Annexure-A and the letter of the Circle Officer, Harnuat addressed to the District Magistrate Nalanda present at Annexure-B of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Nalanda.

¶32

A similar stand has also been taken by the Principal Secretary in his counter affidavit.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The facts are admitted and the names of the ancestors of these petitioner stands entered in the revenue records, as well, the dwelling are existing on the plots claimed by the petitioners as their raiyati land. In the circumstances the respondents can make no intrusion on the raiyati rights of the petitioners without their consent and which is not forthcoming. Even otherwise the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana does not permit construction of road on a raiyati land without consent of landholders. Any plea that no

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.16479 of 2014 (4) dt.22-01-2015

¶35

5 / 5

¶36

demolition has taken place or that there already exists a village road thereon, would not justify the action proposed. Any construction of a public road on a private property effecting raiyati rights has to be either made with consent of the land owners or after acquiring land in accordance with law. Certainly, such steps has not been taken by the authorities. The matter is even worse in the present case, when there is an alternative plot available with the respondents for carrying out the purpose at Plot No. 3105.

¶37

In the circumstances discussed, the District Magistrate, Nalanda as well as the authorities in the Road Construction Department and the respondent authorities in the Rural Works Department are directed to refrain from making any construction of a public road over Plot No. 1607 of Khata No. 58 in Mauza Dehri village-Birjumilki in the District of Nalanda. This order however would not preclude the authorities from carrying out the exercise on Plot No. 3105 which admittedly is a public land and available for the purpose.

¶38

The writ petition is allowed with directions/observations aforementioned.

¶39

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶40

Bibhash/-

¶41

Manisha Sinha and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Sinha and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Sahni Vs The State Of Bihar

Rustam Khan @ Rustam Vs The State Of Bihar

Haspura Prakhand Pacs Vikash Samanway Samiti and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Prem Kala Devi Vs Town Commissioner Municipal Corporation Patna and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Mishra Vs Town Commissioner Municipal Corporation Patna and Ors.