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.