SASHIBHUSAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In M. J. C. No. 611 of 1955 the petitioner Sashibhusan Prasad Singh has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondent, namely, the State of Bihar, to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued for quashing a notification of the State Government dated 30-7-1955, initiating proceedings under Section 3 (1) of Bihar Act 10 of 1947 with regard to a drainage work, known as Songhatta Drainage Scheme. Cause has -been shown by the Advocate-General on behalf of the respondent, against whom notice was directed to be given.

(2.) In Mouza Bagh Majhua there is a sheet of water known as Suhia Jhil spreading over an area of about twenty acres of land. The channel which drained the water had become silted with the result that the area became water-logged and bhadai and rabi crops could not be cultivated. In order to improve the state of affairs the State Government proceeded to take action under Section 3 of Bihar Act 10 of 1947. On 30-7-1955, the State Government issued a notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act giving a description of the proposed scheme known as Songhatta Drainage Scheme. The complaint of the petitioner is that no notice of the scheme was given to the persons affected as required, by Section 3 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act and no time was granted to the persons affected for filing objections. The case of the petitioner is that there has been a violation of the peremptory conditions laid down in Section 3 (1) of the Act, and therefore, the notification of the State Government dated 30-7-1955, is illegal and ultra vires and the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the notification are also illegal. In a counter-affidavit the State of Bihar has submitted that the scheme was taken up for desilting the old drainage channel, the area of which was about 60 acres, and that the area to be benefited by the proposed scheme was about 500 acres. It was also stated on behalf of the respondent that the Scheme was taken up under Section 5-A of Act 10 of 1947, and so no special notice was given to the villagers affected.

(3.) There is a counter-affidavit filed also on behalf of Mahendra Singh and two other persons who are newly added respondents. They claim to be residents of village Bagh Majhawan and Sonaghatta. They alleged in the counter-affidavit that an identical scheme was the subject matter of dispute between the parties in Embankment Case No. 1 of 1950-51, decided by the Collector of Shahabad. The people of Manikpur objected to the Scheme but the objection was overruled by the Collector, who decided that the channel should be re-excavated with the least possible delay. The order of the Collector is to the following effect.