AMBIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A report was called for by this Court by order dated 25.2.2010 from the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna in regard to the facts, as mentioned in the writ petition. The report has been received under memo no. 825, dated 16.3.2010 by the Court directly, which is kept on record.

(2.) The three petitioners are the residents of village Manki Par, P.S. Kadir Ganj, District-Patna. They have objected to and protested against the State action by which forcibly public road is being constructed on their lands. They represented to various authorities to stop construction on their lands and the authorities not having stopped the construction they have left with no option but to move this Court. They had averred that this road was being constructed under Pradhan Mantry Gramin Sarak Yojna. Under this Scheme road can only be constructed for betterment of villages upon donation of lands for the road aforesaid by the land owners. Petitioners specifically asserted that neither they were ever asked to donate their lands nor they donated their lands nor lands were acquired , still their lands were being occupied for construction of road . It is under this situation, a report was called for from the District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Patna, which, as stated above, has been received. The report, which is now part of the records discloses a quite disturbing state of affairs. The report admits that the condition precedent for taking up road construction under the said scheme is voluntary surrender of land by the villagers for construction of road. Report does not refer to any effort by any government officials concerned with the said construction having ever made to approach the petitioners for surrendering their lands for construction of road. To the contrary, the report categorically states that when the work was to be started on petitioners' land, they objected to it straightway, which created law and order problem. This raises a serious question. When the condition precedent for taking up any such scheme was voluntary donation of land or voluntary surrender by the land owners for the road, then why project report was prepared, sent for sanction, scheme sanctioned, funds allotted, contractor appointed without any such surrender of land. The condition precedent for taking up this work under this scheme being totally absent, how could even a proposal be drawn up. Court wonders. The only way, a person in a country governed by Constitution and rule of law can be deprived of his property is either by his own surrender or acquisition. That is the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution. That is the very basis of the scheme but for what reason this fundamental requirement was forgotten and/or ignored is not coming forth. The fact remains that the petitioners for whatever reason do not agree to surrender their lands for construction of public road under the said Scheme and if that be so, as is accepted by the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Patna, in his report also then no road can be constructed nor the petitioners' land can be occupied for the said purpose. Thus, I am left with no option but to direct the district authorities to take all effective steps to restore peaceful possession of the petitioners' land to them in the shape it was. In case any construction has been made on petitioners' lands that would be required to be removed forthwith restoring the lands to its original cultivating position. This would be ensured by the district administration within fifteen days from today ,as these three writ petitioners do not want betterment either of their village or betterment of their neighbours by good communication infrastructure. However, rule of law must prevail.

(3.) As it is not disputed that the petitioners' lands were illegally and unauthorisedly encroached upon by the State authorities and instrumentalities, disregarding safe guard, petitioners would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each to be payable by the State recoverable from the persons, who have negligently sought sanction for the work.