Patna High Court
Suresh Lal DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court disposed of the petition, finding that no unauthorized road had been constructed on the petitioner’s land and therefore granting no relief.
Summary
The petitioner, a private raiyati landholder, claimed that the Gram Panchayat of Keoti illegally encroached upon his land to construct a road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Scheme without his consent or any acquisition process. He filed objections in 2017 and served a statutory notice under Section 80 of the CPC in 2019, but the authorities proceeded to fix an electric pole and allegedly construct the road. The petitioner argued that the Panchayat's actions violated Article 243(G) and Article 300A of the Constitution and that Memo No.3578 (2013) was ultra vires. The respondents contended that no road had been built and that the memo did not bar the construction. The court examined the objections, the lack of a scientific report, and the fact that, according to a revenue officer’s report, no road had actually been constructed on the petitioner’s land. Relying on constitutional protection of property and the requirement of due process, the court held that there was no unauthorized construction and therefore dismissed the petition, leaving the matter of compensation open for appropriate remedy if aggrieved.
Issues considered
- Whether the Gram Panchayat can encroach upon private raiyati land without the landowner's consent or acquisition under Article 300A of the Constitution.
- Whether Memo No.3578 dated 17.06.2013, issued under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Scheme, is ultra vires to the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the vacating of the land and payment of compensation.
- Whether the statutory notice under Section 80 of the CPC suffices to restrain the construction of the road.
- Whether the state authorities violated procedural due process in ignoring the petitioner’s objections.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- raiyati land
- encroachment
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- property rights
- Article 300A
- Article 243G
- CPC Section 80
- Gram Panchayat
- road construction
- compensation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14927 of 2021
======================================================
Suresh Lal Das Son of Late Baidyanath Lal Das Resident of Village- Ranway,
P.O.- Keoti Ranway, District- Darbhanga at present residing at PNT Colony,
Beladullah Belashankar, Belauna, Darbhanga, Bihar- 846006.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
3. The Collector Darbhanga.
4. The District Development Commissioner Darbhanga at Laheriasarai.
5. The Anchal Adhikari Keoty Anchal, District- Darbhanga.
6. The Mukhiaya Gram Panchayat Raj, Keoty, P.O.- Keoty, District-
Darbhanga.
7. Nasra Begum Wife of Badre Alam Mukhiaya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Keoty,
P.O.- Keoty, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ugranath Mallik, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, ( AAG12 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to
vacate the raiyati land of the petitioner because the
Respondent No.6 i.e. Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj
Keoty without notice or written consent wrongly took
initiative for encroaching raiyati land and informed the
State Officials to sanction the project and to provide fund
for making road under Gramin Sarak Yojana or any
Patna High Court CWJC No.14927 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
2/9
other Yojana and also to make payment as compensation
by which the respondent authority granted permission to
construct the road without any notice or permission or
any other relief/reliefs by which the petitioner is entitle to
get payment along with pay with 18% interest from the
date of making the road.”
3.The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the
absolute raiyati landholder of land bearing Khata No. 1020,
Khesra No. 1800 measuring 16 dhurs, Khata No. 1028, Khesra
No. 1839 measuring 1 katha 5 dhurs, and Khata No. 1028,
Khesra No. 1848 measuring 13½ dhurs, over which he has
never been dispossessed and remains in continuous possession
as evidenced by up-to-date rent receipts. The petitioner came to
know that the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Keoti, without
any authority of law, decided to construct a road by encroaching
upon the petitioner’s aforesaid raiyati land, which is purely
private land and not Aam land nor connected with any public or
State purpose. Upon such knowledge, the petitioner raised
objections and submitted an application before the Mukhiya on
22.05.2017, followed by repeated representations to the
concerned authorities seeking stoppage of illegal construction.
When the petitioner further learnt that a proposal had been sent
to the State Government for construction of the road over his
private land, he served a statutory notice under Section 80
C.P.C. on 02.07.2019; however, instead of redressing the
grievance, the authorities proceeded to fix an electric pole over
Patna High Court CWJC No.14927 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
3/9
the petitioner’s raiyati land bearing Plot No. 1848. Despite
reminders dated 09.09.2019 and 19.02.2020 and subsequent
representations before the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga
on 22.03.2021 and 16.04.2021, no action was taken. The
petitioner contends that the respondents have acted in blatant
violation of settled principles of law, including the law laid
down by this Hon’ble Court in Meira Kumar vs. State of Bihar
& Others and the Bihar Litigation Policy, 2009, by encroaching
upon raiyati land without consent or acquisition, leaving the
petitioner with no other efficacious alternative remedy then to
invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that without consent the Raiayati land of
the petitioner appertaining to Khata No.1020, Khesra No.1800,
measuring total area 16 Dhur, Khata No.1028, Khesra No.1839
and 1849 measuring 1 Katha 5 Dhur situated in village Keoty,
has been illegally acquired for construction of road by the Gram
Panchayat, Keoty. The petitioner has filed his objection dated
22.05.2017 (Annexure-A 2 to the writ petition) and the same has
not been given effect by the Divisional Commissioner,
Darbhanga. The petitioner informs that though he has not
challenged the vires of Panchayati Raj Department, Resolution
Patna High Court CWJC No.14927 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
4/9
contained in memo no.3578, which he has brought by way of
Annexure-10 to the rejoinder challenged by him against
controverting the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent nos.3 to 5. Learned counsel submitted that the
resolution has not taken into consideration the provisions of
Article 243(G) as well as Article 300A of the Constitution of
India. It was further contended that the Government policy
contained in Memo No. 3578, issued under the scheme Pradhan
Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, is ultra vires to the Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. The said memo does not provide for
allocation of funds for land acquisition. Learned counsel further
submitted that Memo No. 3578 dated 17.06.2013 contains a
prohibition to the effect that, if there is an objection by the
owner whose land is sought to be acquired, such land shall not
be taken for construction purposes.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed but
there is no reference of the Government’s decision contained in
memo no. 3578 dated 17.06.2013 which dis-entitle the
petitioner on the ground that the land of the petitioner has been
taken for construction of the road and as such the claim of the
petitioner is not fit to be entertained by this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14927 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
5/9
6. Heard the parties.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, I find that the petitioner has brought on
record that in village Keoty, the land as described above, over
which village road has been constructed, and in light of the
prohibition contained in memo no.3578 dated 17.06.2013 that in
absence of an objection by the land owner, whose land has been
acquired for construction of road, over the land for development
of village, cannot be taken away without the consent of the land
owner. The petitioner has filed his objection on 22.05.2017
before several authorities and subsequent to that on 16.04.2021
but till date no consideration has been made to his objection
application in view of the fact that it has been admitted by the
respondent that the road has not been constructed over the
petitioner’s land. In this regard specific information is contained
para 6 to 8 of the counter affidavit which is reproduced
hereinafter;
“6. That the matter is concerned
with alleged construction over khata No. 1020
Khesra No. 1800, Khata No. 1028, Khesra No.
1839 and 1849, situated in Mauja Keoti Runway,
Thana No. 392, Anchal Keoti, Darbhanga.
7. That in the regard a report was
called from the Revenue Karamchari (K.C.) cum
-C.I. (In-charge) Keoti and he submitted his
report on 04.03.2022.
A true photocopy of K.C. dated
04.03.2022 is being annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure-A to this counter affidavit.
8. That as per report of K.C. dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.14927 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
6/9
04.03.2022 at present no construction of road
has been done at concerned plot and further
more no objection certificate, has also not been
issued ever by C.O. Office for construction of
road over alleged plot.”
8. This Court finds that the Anchal Amin and the
Circle Officer, concerned have not given any scientific report in
respect of the road which has been constructed particularly in
respect of the land which the petitioner has claimed. Admittedly
the said road has been constructed as per the Pradhan Mantri
Gram Sadak Scheme to give employment to the laborers to give
due regard to the Government of India scheme Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA),
2005, which is now being replaced by the Viksit Bharat-
Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or VB-G
RAM G, 2025. Since the scheme don’t gives any power to the
Gram Panchayat to construct road where a citizen has objected
and in the present case the petitioner has stated that he has filed
an objection in respect of the measurement made by the Circle
Officer on the basis of report of the Amin which is not founded
on the scientific determination because the same is not
supported by the number of laborers having worked for
construction of the said road and in absence of the measurement
Book maintained for giving payment to the laborers on the basis
of Geo-tagging of the area, I don’t find the report as submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.14927 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
7/9
by the Circle Officer is convincing.
9. The Gram Panchayat has its due jurisdiction under
Article 243-G of the Constitution of India. Article 243G is in
respect of local self-governance and not in respect of the subject
“Land”. Its inherent jurisdiction is contingent upon the extent of
power, specifically endowed by the State Legislature under
Entry 5 of List II, making the formal devolution of the Eleventh
Schedule subjects a prerequisite for any exercise of
administrative or statutory functions, the enabling provisions are
further subject to the conditions, as may be specified. Therefore,
it is for the State Legislature to consider conditions and to make
laws accordingly. In terms of Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India, so as to not deprive a citizen from his property which
can be acquired only by following due process of law.
10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC
No. 8319 of 2013 (Smt. Meira Kumar vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.) has though directed the State to consider the objection and
maintain status quo in such cases, without considering the
limited jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat function and
implementation of the scheme and without taking into
consideration of the mandate of Article 243-G of the
Constitution of India. In the present case the scheme which has
Patna High Court CWJC No.14927 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
8/9
to be implemented for the construction of the road in the village,
in spite of the objections, no action was taken, forcing the
petitioner to file the present writ petition. However, now in the
counter affidavit it has been admitted that till date no road has
been constructed.
11. At the same time, this Court observes that the
memo no.3578 dated 17.06.2013 has been issued ignoring the
mandate of the right of a citizen contained in Article 300 A of
the Constitution of India and dispossessing the citizen from his
property, even though he has consented to the same, is against
the provision enshrined under Article 300 A of the Constitution
of India, which tends to safeguard the invaluable right to
property.
12. In such circumstances, as till date it is admitted
that the road has not been constructed unauthorizedly over the
land belonging to the petitioner, this Court is constrained to
discuss the question of payment of compensation, in view of
discussion made hereinabove. However, the petitioner, if so
desire, may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if
he is aggrieved for any action of the State Government or of the
Union of India.
13. Accordingly, the present application stands
Patna High Court CWJC No.14927 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
9/9
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…