Disposed

Ramlaw Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC8 Jan 2016CWJC/17046/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ jurisdiction case where the High Court directed authorities to halt construction on petitioner's land pending a representation, with liberty to file a reasoned application before the District Magistrate. The court mandated a six-month timeline for resolution covering either encroachment removal, halting construction, or initiated acquisition proceedings with compensation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach District Magistrate with representation; directed authorities to halt construction or initiate acquisition proceedings with compensation within six months if necessary.

Ramlaw Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17046 of 2015

¶3

=========================================================== Ramlaw Choudhary son of Late Badri Narain Choudhary resident of village - Damu Tole Chilmilia, P.S. Basopatti, District Madhubani.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar.

¶5

District Magistrate, Madhubani.

¶6

Subdivisional Officer, Jainagar, District Madhubani.

¶7

Circle Officer, Basopatti, District Madhubani.

¶8

Block Development Officer, Basopatti, District Madhubani.

¶9

Engineer in Chief cum Additional Secretary, Department of Rural Engineering Organisation, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Muzaffarpur. 8. Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Darbhanga. 9. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Jainagar, District Madhubani. 10. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Engineering Organisation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶11

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Md.Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate For the State : M/s S. Raza Ahmad, AAG9 Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG 9

¶12

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-01-2016

¶13

As prayed, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Engineering Organization, Govt. of Bihar as respondent no. 10 in course of the day.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that PCC road is being constructed by the Department of Rural Engineering Organization on

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.17046 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016

¶17

2/3

¶18

the raiyati lands of the petitioner of old khesra no. 3384 the corresponding new khesra being 8206 appertaining to old khata no. 72 and new khata no. 831 of Mauza Damu Tole Chilmilia within Basopatti Block in the district of Madhubani. It is contended that the part of the land in question is ancestral and part purchased from the other co-sharer. The petitioner claims to have represented before the authority concerned including the District Magistrate, Madhubani.

¶19

It is well settled that a land of the person cannot be utilized by the State Authority without his consent or without its acquisition and paying compensation.

¶20

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, Madhubani, 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 pass a reasoned order and get necessary measurement done. If it is found that the petitioner’s land has been or being utilized for construction of PCC road then it should be stopped immediately and matter should be referred immediately to the respondent no. 10, the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Engineering Organization, who shall take a decision either for removing the encroachment made forthwith so that

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.17046 of 2015 dt.08-01-2016

¶22

3/3

¶23

the land could be brought to its original nature and form and possession should be handed over to the petitioner or if the construction is proposed then directing the concerned officers of the Department not to construct road upon the raiyati land of the petitioner or 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 and grant compensation to the petitioner. It is expected that the whole exercise would be completed within the period of six months from the date of filing of representation along with a copy of this order by the petitioner before the District Magistrate concerned.

¶24

However, in case the District Magistrate finds that the land of the petitioner has not been utilized or being utilized for construction of PCC road then he would be required to pass a reasoned order, a copy of which should immediately be communicated to the petitioner.

¶25

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)

¶26

Spd/-

¶27

Ramlaw Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlaw Choudhary 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sangita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shambhu Chaturvedi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Yamuna Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chand Babu @ Runna Mian Vs The State Of Bihar

Sachidanand Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.