Holding

The direction for construction of the road shall be operative only after the pending writ petition challenging the land acquisition is disposed of, and the High Court is directed to dispose of that petition.

Summary

The appellants, Ram Prasad Rai and others, challenged the legality of a land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that their land was to be taken by the State of Bihar. While their writ petition (CWJC No. 3232/2004) was pending, another writ petition and a public‑interest litigation, filed by a different party, sought a direction for construction of a road on the same acquired land and were disposed of quickly by the Patna High Court, which directed the district magistrate or gram panchayat to proceed with the road. The appellants argued that such a direction affected their rights because the acquisition itself was under challenge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court must first dispose of the pending writ petition concerning the acquisition, and that any direction for road construction would only become operative after that disposal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court was directed to resolve the pending writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a direction for construction of a road on land whose acquisition is under challenge can be operative before the pending writ petition challenging the acquisition is decided.
Whether the High Court should stay or condition its direction pending disposal of the writ petition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Subjects

land acquisitionwrit petitionpublic interest litigationconstruction of roadArticle 226direction pending litigationHigh CourtSupreme Court

Judgment

A RAM PRASAD RAI @ RAM PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

B [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.)

Constitution of India, I950; Article 226:

Land acquisition proceeding-Challenged by petitioners-appellant-
C Filing of another writ petition/Public Interest Litigation by other person
allegedly mischievously designated to harass appellants-Disposed of by
High Court directing the authorities concerned to take appropriate steps for
construction of roads etc. on the land so acquired-Challenged by the
appellants on the ground that the direction given by High Court for
D construction of road on the land, the acquisition of which was under challenge
and pending before the High Court-Held: High Court is directed to dispose
of the pending writ petition-Direction to authorities in terms of impugned
order would be operative after ·disposal of the petition pending before the
High Court depending upon the decision to be made in the said petition.

E A writ petition was filed by the appellants questioning the legality of
the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
in which their lands were sought to be acquired by the State Government.
According to the appellants, respondent no.6 had filed another writ petition,
but the present appellants were not impleaded as parties in the said writ
F petition. Yet another writ petition styled as "Public Interest Litigation" was
filed by them. The appellants alleged that the petition was nothing but a
mischievously designed attempt to harass them. It was disposed of a day after
it was filed. However, writ petition filed by the appellants and another were
pending. Hence the present appeal.

Appellants contended that there was a direction by the High Court for
G
construction of a road on the land, acquisition of which is under challenge.

State of Bihar and Respondent no.6 submitted that the impugned order ~
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is rather innocuous and in

H 40
RAM PRASAD RAI @RAM PRASAD SINGH v. STA TE OFBIHAR [PASAYA T, J.] 41
no way affects the appellants. A
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be
appropriate to direct the High Court to dispose of the pending writ pt.tition,
CWJC No.3232 of2004. The direction in the impugned order for construction B
of the roads would be operative after the disposal of the writ petition in question
depending upon the decision in the said writ petition. (Para 10) (43-BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 911 of2007.
1
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 3.8.2004 of the High Court of c
Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 8674/2004.

-
S. Chandra Shekhar and Amit Pawan. for the Appellants.

P.S. Mishra, Upendra Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Dhruv Kumar Jha,
Ravi C. Prakash, Mano Shanker Mishra, B.B. Singh, Gopal Singh and Nishakant D
Pandey for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. I. Leave granted.
E
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench
of the Patna High Court in a Writ Petition filed by respondent No.6-Vijay
Kumar Singh.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
F
4. A Writ Petition was filed by the appellants questioning the legality
) of the proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the
'Act') in which their lands were sought to be acquired. In the. said Writ
Petition, father of respondent No.6 Barn Bahadur Singh was respondent No.6.
According to the appellants aforesaid Barn Bahadur Singh had entered
appearance in the said writ petition. One Fudena Rai filed a writ petition which G
is numbered as CWJC No. 2862 of2004. In the said writ petition a prayer inter-
alia was made to the effect that the respondents therein should be commanded
~ by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders
to construct the road for which the land has been acquired. In the said writ
petition the present appellants were not parties. However, the same was being H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A heard almost on the same day when the writ petition filed by the appellants
i.e. W.P. 3232/2004 was being heard.

5. The writ petition to which the present appeal relates is numbered as
CWJC No. 8674 of 2004 and was styled as "Public Interest Litigation". It is
the appellants' case that the petition was nothing but a mischievously designed
B attempt to harass the appellants. The writ petition was also a verbatim copy
of the writ petition filed by Fudena Rai i.e. W.P. No.2862 of2004.

6. While the appellants' writ petition and Fudena Rai's writ petition were
pending, by the impugned order the same has been disposed of, a day after ~
it was filed. The order is a short one and reads as follows:
c
"The grievance of the petitioner is that the land has been acquired
but no steps are being taken for construction of the road.

D
In our <iew, the petitioner should approach the District Magistrate,
Vaishali at Hajippur who will look into the matter and see that if the
fund is available under any agency or the Gram Panchayat is ready
-
to construct out of its own fund, then he will issue necessary direction
in this regard. If there is any encroachment on the land, the District
Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur will also take steps for removal of the
same.
E With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of."

7. According to the appellants there is virtually a direction for
construction of a road on the land the acquisition of which is under challenge.
F It is submitted that subsequently CW JC No.2862 of 2004 was referred to the
Division Bench and was dismissed.

8. In response, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and respondent
No.6 submitted that the impugned order passed by the Division Bench is
rather innocuous and in no way affects the appellants.
G 9. Though the order appears to be innocuous, there are certain aspects
which need to be highlighted. Obviously, the direction was for construction
by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajippur or the Gram Panchayat. There
was no indication that the same was to be governed by the decision in the
writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. If the High Court would
H have mentioned that these directions were to be carried out after the disposal
RAM PRASAD RAl@RAM PRASADSINGHv. STATE OF BIHAR [PASAYAT, J.] 43

of the writ petition challenging th~ acquisition proceedings there would not A
-1
have been any difficulty.

10. In the aforesaid background, we feel it would be appropriate to
direct the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition CWJC No. 3232
of 2004. The direction in the impugned order for construction would be
operative after the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition depending upon the B
decision in the said writ petition.

I I. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No ~osts.

S.K.S. Appeal disposed of.

)