District Magistrate Must Consider Fresh Site-Selection Representations Under Applicable Panchayat Building Guidelines.

Following a direction to identify land for a Panchayat Government Building, the Circle Amin reported that land at Kolhana Tola Maina Chatar was suitable.

After objections and further administrative action, the District Magistrate selected that site, but the District Panchayat Raj Officer later directed identification of another site and indicated land at Noni; the Executive Engineer also reported that the Kolhana site was unsuitable.

The appellant’s writ petition challenging the change of site was dismissed by the Single Judge, who relied on Krishna Deo Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 3280 of 2024.

In the appeal, the appellant relied on the State Government circular, Memo No. 8354 dated 30 August 2022, concerning site-selection guidelines.

1. Whether the State Government circular dated 30 August 2022 was relevant to consideration of the competing claims concerning the proposed site.

2. Whether the appellant should be permitted to pursue a fresh representation before the District Magistrate, and whether the Single Judge’s dismissal order required modification.

The Court considered the State Government’s circular, Memo No. 8354 dated 30 August 2022, as containing guidelines relevant to the selection of land for Panchayat Government Buildings.

It also noted the precedent relied upon by the Single Judge, Krishna Deo Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 3280 of 2024, which had stated that the decision concerning the situs of a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan lay within the relevant authorities’ domain and that judicial direction was unwarranted in the circumstances of that case.

The Court directed that any fresh representation be decided by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, having regard to the circular.

The Court did not determine which site was suitable or express any view on the merits of the rival claims.

It found that the circular relied upon by the appellant contained relevant site-selection guidelines and could affect consideration of the issue.

It therefore considered it appropriate to allow the appellant to place the circular and supporting materials before the District Magistrate for consideration, rather than resolve the site dispute in the appeal.

The District Magistrate was directed to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, keeping the circular in view.

The Single Judge’s order was modified to that extent; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the land-suitability claims.