Patna High Court
Jai Shankar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as there is no illegality in the Single Judge's order and the appellant's claim lacks substantiation.
Summary
The appellant, a landowner, claimed that a road constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in 2010-11 was built on his raiyati land without his consent and sought compensation. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that the scheme required landowner consent, that the appellant raised no objection during construction, and that more than ten years had elapsed, indicating implied consent. On appeal, the High Court examined the counter‑affidavit and noted the absence of any material evidence of unauthorized acquisition and the appellant's prolonged silence. The Court held that the appellant could not substantiate a claim of illegal construction and that the writ could not be entertained after such delay. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the construction of a road under PMGSY on the appellant's land without explicit consent amounts to unlawful acquisition requiring compensation.
- Whether the appellant's silence for over a decade constitutes implied consent, thereby barring relief.
- Whether a writ petition seeking compensation can be entertained more than ten years after the road's completion.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- consent
- PMGSY
- compensation
- writ petition
- statute of limitations
- road construction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.35 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14768 of 2022
======================================================
Jai Shankar Sharma son of Sri Raghuvansh Sharma, Resident of Village-
Ganga Sarai, P. S. Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road,
Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Gram Karya Vibhag, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in- Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar,
Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer, Gramin Karya Vibhag, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna.
6. The Collector/District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
7. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Lakhisarai.
8. The Circle Officer, Barahiya, Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
3 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been filed
challenging the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
14768 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed
the writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.35 of 2024(3) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
the owner of a piece of land situated in Village- Jaitpur, P.S.
Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai appertaining to Mauza-
Nathanpur, Thana No. 180, Khata No. 67, Khesra No. 1009,
1061, 1038 and 1026, Area- 3 acres 7.5 decimals. In the year
2010-11 under the Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojna (Yojna
No. BR19R037), a road was constructed connecting Kamarpur
village to Barahiya via Nathanpur. It is alleged by the appellant
that the said road has been constructed by acquiring his raiyati
land without his consent.
4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition observed as follows:
“4. It is not in dispute that the said scheme of
Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojna for the
construction of road did not contemplate
acquisition of land rather consent of the land
owners was needed to implement the scheme.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the State. It is contended that in the present case,
the road was actually constructed in the year 2010-
2011 by the Roral Works Construction Division,
Sheikhpura under the Prime Minister Gram Sadak
Yojna No. BR19R037 and in the year 2019-2020,
only widening/strengthening the alignment of the
said road has been done without occupying any
further land. It is further contended that at the time
of construction of the road, no objection was raised
Patna High Court L.P.A No.35 of 2024(3) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
by the petitioner
6. There is no material on record to suggest that
when the road was being constructed, the petitioner
raised any grievance against the same. In fact, he
remained silent when the road was being
constructed indicates that he had agreed to
construction of the road. More than ten years after
construction of the road under the Prime Minister
Gram Sadak Yojna, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner as has been sought in the present writ
application.
7. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.”
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the construction of the road on the land of the appellant has been
done without the consent of the appellant, and the respondent
authorities ought to have followed the statutory provisions with
regards to payment of compensation against the acquisition of
land. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
the appellant has not been treated at par with other landlords
whose land has been acquired in the construction of the said
road.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-state
submits that the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the
writ petition after going through submissions and materials on
record, and therefore the order of the learned Single Judge
Patna High Court L.P.A No.35 of 2024(3) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
requires no interference.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 7. From a bare perusal of the counter
affidavit, it is evident that the road was constructed under the
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY) by the Rural
Works Department in the year 2010-11 and the appellant
approached the Court after passing of almost 11 years. The
relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit is reproduced as
under:
“8. That the petitioner (appellant) did not raise any
objection while the road was being constructed
under PMGSY in the year 2010-2011 meaning
thereby the petitioner (appellant) has consented for
the same.
9. That the appellant for the first time in the year
2022, made representation for compensation of the
land, which is more than 10 years of its completion.
10. That the appellant was silent for 11 years when
road was allegedly being constructed on his private
land for the reason best known to him.”
8. Under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
(PMGSY) scheme, provisions for voluntary donation of land for
construction of village roads have been made. The conduct of
the petitioner, and the facts and circumstances of the present
case prima facie show the consent of the petitioner for the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.35 of 2024(3) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
construction of the road in question, as the petitioner did not
raise any grievance at the time of construction or at the earliest
opportune moment available to him.
9. Upon perusal of records of this case, it is evident
that no material evidence has been produced before this court to
show that any unauthorized construction of road had taken place
on the land of the petitioner without his consent. Thus, the
appellant has been unable to substantiate his claim that a road
has been constructed on his land without his consent. As such
the claim of the petitioner, that too after more than 10 years of
construction of the road cannot be entertained.
10. In view of the discussions made above, we find
no illegality and infirmity in the order of the learned Single
Judge. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is accordingly,
dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…