High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 09 PAT CK 0141

Ram Prakash Jha vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Patna High Court · Decided on 20 September 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 740 Of 2016, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1889 Of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 353 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG 6 for the State.

2.

Pursuant to order dated 21.08.2019, the District Magistrate, Begusarai is present for reasons recorded in the said order. He has also filed show cause.

3.

The controversy relates to the apprehension of the petitioner that though the road in front of his house was constructed partly from the land donated by his ancestor but recently the authorities were trying to widen without adhering to the due process of law, i.e, acquisition or otherwise. Thus, he had moved the Court earlier in CWJC No. 1889 of 2011 dated 25.02.2014 in which the following order was passed.

"However, in case even a fraction of the land of the petitioner has been utilized for such construction and no acquisition proceeding is initiated, then such construction should be removed and possession should be restored back to the petitioner."

4.

In the show cause filed today, the following stand has been taken on behalf of the authorities, at paragraph no. 18:

"18..........The respondent authorities before this Hon'ble Court assert that these respondents have not utilised even a fraction of the land of petitioner more than 12 feet wide and 241 feet long and as such no acquisition proceeding was likely to be initiated. These respondents authorities further undertake that presently there is no proposal for widening of this road and in future too, if any proposal of widening of this public road more than 12 feet comes in future for beautification and fulfilment of necessity of public at large then even the fraction of land of petitioner shall not be utilised without acquisition in accordance with law and under obedience of Hon'ble Court order passed in CWJC No. 1889 of 2011."

5.

In view of the categorical statement made on oath by the authorities and reiterated before the Court, both by learned counsel for the State and the District Magistrate, Begusarai, nothing further is required to be done in the present case.

6.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed off in terms of such undertaking.

7.

Personal appearance of the officer stands dispensed with.