Government cannot construct concrete roads on private raiyati land without valid acquisition or owner consent.

The petitioner, owner of plot nos. 8732 (old), 15521, and 16335 (new) in Village Itharwa, Madhubani, alleged that private respondents, in collusion with local authorities (Mukhiya), constructed a concrete (P.C.C.) road on his raiyati land using government funds without his consent or legal acquisition.

Despite a government Amin report confirming the petitioner’s claim and an order from the District Magistrate to remove the encroachment, the Circle Officer failed to take action.

The State and private respondents contended that the land was historically used as a passage (Gairmajarua Khaas) and that a 1979 Panchnama granted an easement right.

1. Whether government funds can be utilized to construct a P.C.C. road over private Raiyati land without the owner’s consent or formal land acquisition?

2. Whether a claimed right of easement based on a historical Panchnama precludes the removal of an illegal concrete construction?

The State cannot utilize private raiyati land for public infrastructure without the owner's voluntary "No Objection" or following the legal process of land acquisition.

A writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputed private rights of easement or claims and counter-claims arising from private agreements like a Panchnama.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s title and possession were effectively admitted by the respondents’ reliance on the Panchnama.

Since the land was confirmed to be raiyati land and no formal acquisition occurred, the construction of a permanent concrete road using public funds without the petitioner’s consent was held to be illegal.

Regarding the easement claimed by Respondent No. 8, the Court reasoned that while a right of passage might exist, it does not authorize the government to build a concrete road on private land.

Any grievance regarding the withdrawal of a passage right must be addressed in a civil court.

The Court emphasized that government expenditure on private property is only permissible through specific legal consent or acquisition.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani, was directed to ensure the demolition of the concrete construction within one month. The State was granted liberty to recover the construction costs from the erring officials responsible for the illegal project. Private respondents were advised to seek relief in a civil court for the enforcement of easementary rights.