RAM NAGINA SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 8.7.1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 the District Magistrate, Ballia (as contained in Annexure No. 2) and the entire proceedings done pursuant to the aforementioned order by granting of a writ of certiorari. A further prayer has been made to command the respondents not to acquire the lands of the petitioner for construction of road through his land and not to do earth filling work in his land. A perusal of the Annexure No. 2, however, shows that it is a letter addressee by the respondent No. 1 to the Up -Ziladhikari, Ballia stating that he had inspected and verified Ambedkar village, Barauli Vikas Khand, Nagra and it was found during his verification that for the purpose of completion of the proposed road of the Public Works Department some lands of Ram Nagma Singh s/o Noujadik Singh (who is petitioner), is necessary to be requisitioned and thus those lands to be requisitioned immediately and he be apprised. The aforementioned letter also contains a note of forwarding by the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 16.7.1997 directing the Tehsildar to take steps as per the rules. In the backdrop aforementioned we do not appreciate the grievance made by Sri. K.N. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that without following the mandate provisions of the Land Acquisition Act the respondents are forcibly doing earth filling work in his lands bearing plot Nos. 1044 and 1045 and are destroying the crops already sown on his land According to him there is already a way (road or passage) which connects the proposed Ambedkar village to the Chak Road and the main abadi of the village and thus there is no need at all to acquire the land for the constructions of the aforementioned load through his land. The petitioner has not appended a copy of any proceeding done pursuant to the aforementioned direction. The learned Standing Counsel. however, prays to adjourn the case but in view of the nature of order we propose to pass we do not think expedient to adjourn this case Article 300A of the Constitution of India reads thus - -

(2.) BEFORE parting we clarify that we have passed order thinking the letter (Annexure No. 2) to be a genuine document and that if the authorities find that the petitioner has placed a bogus document before this Court in that event it will be open for them to move to this Court for taking appropriate action against the petitioner. In the larger interest of justice we also give liberty to the petitioner to move respondent No. 1 ventilating his grievance alongwith copy of this order within one week from today, which if made shall be considered and disposed of by the respondent No. 1 by assigning reasons.