Patna High Court
Dr. Shiva Shankar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the Collector must conduct a fresh enquiry to determine if the road was built on the petitioners' land and, if so, decide on removal and compensation.
Summary
The petitioners, claiming ancestral ownership of plots 8, 233 and part of 12 in Patna district, alleged that the Rural Works Department constructed a 3.150 km road under the Mukhya Mantri Gram Sampark Yojna on their land without permission or acquisition under the Bihar Land Acquisition Act. They sought a court order to vacate the land, remove the road, or pay compensation. The respondents denied that any part of the petitioners' land was used for the road, citing an affidavit. The Court examined conflicting evidence: an Anchal Amin’s report confirming construction on plot 233 versus the Executive Engineer’s affidavit denying it. Concluding that the factual dispute required clarification, the Court directed the Collector of Patna to conduct a fresh enquiry in the presence of both parties and, based on the findings, decide on removal of the road, public interest considerations, and appropriate compensation. The petition was disposed with these observations.
Issues considered
- Whether the road construction was carried out on the petitioners' ancestral land without complying with the Bihar Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the respondents are liable to remove the road or pay compensation if the land was used without acquisition.
- Whether the Collector should conduct a fresh enquiry to resolve the factual dispute.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- public interest
- road widening
- ancestral land
- Bihar
- civil writ jurisdiction
- collector enquiry
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17719 of 2018
======================================================
1.1. Amita Thakur W/o- R.P. Thakur Resident of Plot No.- 149, Prashashan
Nagar, Road No.- 10, Jubilee Hills, Near Club House, Hyderabad, P.S.-
Jubilee Hills, District- Hyderabad, Telangana.
1.2. Nilesh Kumar S/o Late Shiva Shankar Sharma Resident of Flat No.- 2002,
Block- 2, My Home Krishe, Financial, District- Gachibowli, P.S.-
Gachibowli, District- Ranga Reddy, Telangana.
1.3. Ritesh Kumar S/o- Late Shiva Shankar Sharma Resident of Pakka Kuan
Lane, Mahendru, Patna, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division,
Danapur, Bihar Rural Road Development Agency, Patna.
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
7. The Additional Secretary-cum- Additional Chief Executive Officer, Bihar
Rural Road Development Agency, Patna.
8. Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
Mr.Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Manish Kumar, AC to Ex.AAG-06
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 27-01-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioners pray for and is
allowed to implead the Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna as
respondent no.08 in course of the day.
2. Heard Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17719 of 2018(5) dt.27-01-2026
2/7
petitioners and the State.
3. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for commanding the respondents to
forthwith vacate the land of the petitioner
bearing plot no.8, 233 and a portion of plot
no.12, Thana no.58, situated in Mauza-
Abbupur-Lodipur in the District of Patna,
which has been used for widening and
reconstruction of Koriyama Pul to
Muradpur Road Measuring 3.150 Κ.Μ.
without permission and without acquiring
the same after following the due process of
law as prescribed under the Bihar Land
Acquisition Act;
(ii) for further commanding the respondents
to alternatively pay compensation as per the
Land Acquisitions Act, for using the land of
the petitioner for reconstruction widening of
Koriyama Pul to Muradpur Road;
(iii) for grant of any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner may be found entitled
Patna High Court CWJC No.17719 of 2018(5) dt.27-01-2026
3/7
to.
4. The petitioners own the land (as recorded above in
the prayer portion) in the district of Patna and the claim is that
the plot nos. 8, 233 are their ancestral land registered in the
name of the grand father of the petitioner nos. 1.2 and 1.3
namely Mahendra Singh and after his death, it came in the
possession of the petitioners late father and his elder brother,
Uma Shankar Singh who were paying the rents.
5. The contention in the writ petition is that when the
family went to village home, found the pitch road constructed
from Koriyama Bridge to Muradpur measuring 3.150
kilometers. It was informed that the construction has been
undertaken by the Rural Works Department, Patna through
the Contractor, S.B. Engicon Private Limited under the
Mukhya Mantri Gram Sampark Yojna (henceforth for short
‘the Yojna’)
6. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the said
road has been constructed on their ancestral land without any
approval/permission from them/family members as also without
resorting to the Land Acquisition Act and in that background;
the prayer is/are that:
(i) since it has been constructed
Patna High Court CWJC No.17719 of 2018(5) dt.27-01-2026
4/7
without permission/compensation, it
has to be removed;
(ii) in case, the respondents come to
the conclusion that the construction
has been made on the ancestral land
and the same is essential for the
general people, they have to resort to
the Land Acquisition Act and pay
compensation.
7. It seems that the Executive Engineer (respondent
no. 5) before filing the affidavit got an enquiry conducted
through the Circle office, Phulwarisharif and learned counsel for
the petitioners has taken this Court to the report dated
14.01.2019 to show that the Anchal Amin in his report to the
Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif acknowledged the construction on
the road on survey plot no. 233 (Annexure-C to the petition)
which belongs to the petitioners.
8. The submission is that the report clearly shows that
a road has been constructed. However, the concerned paragraph
(paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit) records that the land of
the petitioners has not been used for the construction of the
road in question. This has also been rebutted by the petitioners
Patna High Court CWJC No.17719 of 2018(5) dt.27-01-2026
5/7
in the paragraph-06 of the reply to the counter affidavit.
9. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits
that the Executive Engineer in his affidavit has clearly stated
that no construction of the road has been made on the land of
the petitioners and as such no direction is required.
10. This Court has gone through the facts of the case
and the submissions of the parties. The admitted position is that
the land in question is/are the ancestral property of the
petitioners. The respondents have acknowledged that a road has
been constructed under ‘the Yojna’. The question that remains
unanswered is as to whether the land of the petitioners has been
used or not for that purpose and in case, it has been used without
any permission or resorting to the Land Acquisition Act;
whether an appropriate order has to be passed or not.
11. This Court cannot ignore the report submitted by
the Anchal Amin, Circle Office, Phulwarisharif who has
acknowledged the construction of road on the plot no.233
belonging to the petitioners. The said report cannot override the
contention made in the affidavit that no land of the petitioners
has been taken for the construction of the road.
12. There is claim by the petitioners which stands
supported by the Anchal Amin’s report whereas there is counter
Patna High Court CWJC No.17719 of 2018(5) dt.27-01-2026
6/7
claim by the respondent, the Executive Engineer denying the
existence of the road on the petitioners’ land.
13. In that background, in the opinion of the Court,
the Collector, Patna (respondent no. 3) has to look into the
matter and after noticing/hearing the parties is duty-bound to
pass a reasoned order.
14. Before hearing the parties, the Collector, Patna
shall ensure that a fresh enquiry is undertaken regarding the
claim/counter claim in the presence of the petitioners (their
representative) and the Executive Engineer, Rural Works
Department, Works Division, Danapur.
15. In case, the fresh report submitted before the
Collector, Patna shows presence of the road on the ancestral
land of the petitioners, he/she shall be duty bound to come to the
conclusion on the point as to:
(i) whether the respondents are going
to remove the road;
(ii) if the road so constructed is in the
public interest;
(iii) whether the petitioners are entitled
to the appropriate compensation or
not.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17719 of 2018(5) dt.27-01-2026
7/7
16. In case, the Collector, Patna gives direction for the
removal of the road existing on the ancestral land of the
petitioners, the responsibility must be fixed and the amount so
invested in the construction of the road has to be released from
the pockets of the Officers who without resorting to the Land
Acquisition Land, constructed the road there. This observation
will come into existence only if the Collector, Patna comes to
the conclusion that the road has been constructed on the
ancestral land of the petitioners and needs to be removed.
17. The entire process has to be completed at an
earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date,
the petitioners prefer a proper petition with supporting
documents before the concerned respondents.
18. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…