Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 911 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Ram Prasad Rai @ Ram Prasad Singh and Ors
RESPONDENT:
State of Bihar and Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & DALVEER BHANDARI
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4982 of 2005)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
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.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
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 Bam Bahadur Singh was respondent No.6.
According to the appellants aforesaid Bam Bahadur Singh had
entered appearance in the said writ petition. One Fudena Rai
filed a writ petition which is numbered as CWJC No. 2862 of
2004. 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 heard almost
on the same day when the writ petition filed by the appellants
i.e. W.P. 3232/2004 was being heard.
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 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
of 2004.
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:
"The grievance of the petitioner is that the
land has been acquired but no steps are being
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
taken for construction of the road.
In our view, 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.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ
application stands disposed of."
According to the appellants there is virtually a direction
for construction of a road on the land the acquisition of which
is under challenge. It is submitted that subsequently CWJC
No.2862 of 2004 was referred to the Division Bench and was
dismissed.
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.
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 have mentioned that these directions
were to be carried out after the disposal of the writ petition
challenging the acquisition proceedings there would not have
been any difficulty.
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
decision in the said writ petition.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.