Construction of public roads on private land without formal acquisition constitutes a gross violation of constitutional rights.

The petitioner claimed ownership of Raiyati land in Bhagalpur, possessed by his family for generations

Due to a clerical error in the 1976 survey khatian, the land was wrongly recorded as "Bihar Sarkar"

The petitioner challenged this in Title Suit No. 24/2006; although the Munsif dismissed the suit, the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, allowed the appeal (Title Appeal No. 123/2009) in December 2017, declaring the petitioner’s title and right over the land

Despite this judgment attaining finality, local authorities (respondent nos. 6 and 7) proceeded to construct a village road on the petitioner’s land without formal acquisition or compensation

The petitioner filed multiple representations to the Executive Engineer and District Magistrate, which were ignored

1. Whether the State can construct a public road on private Raiyati land without following the due process of land acquisition

2. Whether the continued construction despite a judicial decree in favor of the petitioner constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power

The court applied the principle of Eminent Domain, asserting that while the State has sovereign authority over land, it can only acquire private property for public welfare by following "the legal process laid down for the same"

It emphasized the protection of legal and statutory rights against "arbitrariness"

necessity of providing "compensation" as a prerequisite for taking possession of Raiyati land

The court also relied on the finality of judicial decrees passed by competent civil courts in determining land titles

The court found that the petitioner’s status as a 'Raiyat' was conclusively established by the 2017 appellate decree, which the State failed to challenge

The State’s defense—that it acted under a "reasonable belief" following the initial Munsif's dismissal—was rejected because the authorities failed to heed representations or verify records after the petitioner succeeded in appeal

The court reasoned that constructing a road on private land without notice, acquisition proceedings, or compensation is "totally against the settled principle of law"

It characterized the administration's disregard for the petitioner's rights as a "glaring example" of functioning according to "whims and fancies" rather than the rule of law

The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, was directed to personally enquire into the matter using revenue records and the civil court decree... if the claims are genuine, the DM must initiate formal acquisition proceedings for the already constructed road, ensure payment of compensation, and halt any further construction until the land is legally acquired... within three months via a reasoned and speaking order