RAM PRASAD RAI @ RAM PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 40

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, DALVEER BHANDARI

Case summary

RAM PRASAD RAI @ RAM PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

RAM PRASAD RAI @ RAM PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. FEBRUARY 23, 2007 [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ. ) Constitution of India, I950; Article 226: Land acquisition proceeding-Challenged by petitioners-appellant- Filing of another writ petition/Public Interest Litigation by other person allegedly mischievously designated to harass appellants-Disposed of by High Court directing the authorities concerned to take appropriate steps for construction of roads etc. on the land so acquired-Challenged by the appellants on the ground that the direction given by High Court for construction ofroad on the land, the acquisition ofwhich was under challenge and pending before the High Court-Held: High Court is directed to dispose of the pending writ petition-Direction to authorities in terms of impugned order would be operative after ·disposal of the petition pending before the High Court depending upon the decision to be made in the said petition.

A writ petition was filed by the appellants questioning the legality of the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in which their lands were sought to be acquired by the State Government. According to the appellants, respondent no. 6 had filed another writ petition, but the present appellants were not impleaded as parties in the said writ petition. Yet another writ petition styled as "Public Interest Litigation" was filed by them. The appellants alleged that the petition was nothing but a mischievously designed attempt to harass them. It was disposed of a day after it was filed. However, writ petition filed by the appellants and another were pending. Hence the present appeal. Appellants contended that there was a direction by the High Court for construction of a road on the land, acquisition of which is under challenge. State of Bihar and Respondent no.

6 submitted that the impugned order ~ passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is rather innocuous and in RAM PRASAD RAI @RAM PRASADSINGH v. STATE OFBIHAR [PASAYAT, J. ] 41 no way affects the appellants. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the High Court to dispose of the pending writ pt. tition, CWJC No. 3232 of2004. The direction in the impugned order for construction ofthe roads would be operative after the disposal ofthe writ petition in question depending upon the decision in the said writ petition. (Para 10) (43-BJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 911 of2007. 1 From the Final Judgment and Order dated 3. 8. 2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C. W. J. C. No. 8674/2004. S. Chandra Shekhar and Amit Pawan. for the Appellants. P. S. Mishra, Upendra Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Ravi C. Prakash, Mano Shanker Mishra, B. B.

Singh, Gopal Singh and Nishakant Pandey for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. I. Leave granted. 2. 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. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 4. A Writ Petition was filed by the appellants questioning the legality ) ofthe 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 Barn Bahadur Singh was respondent No. 6. According to the appellants aforesaid Barn Bahadur Singh had entered appearance in the said writ petition. One Fudena Rai filed a writ petition which is numbered as CWJC No. 2862 of2004.

In the said writ petition a prayer interalia was made to the effect that the respondents therein should be commanded ~ by a writ ofmandamus 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. 5. 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 of2004. 6.

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 ofthe petitioner is that the land has been acquired but no steps are being taken for construction of the road. In our <iew, 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. " 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. Ifthe High Court would have mentioned that these directions were to be carried out after the disposal RAM PRASAD RAl@RAM PRASADSINGHv. STATE OF BIHAR [PASAYAT, J. ] 43 of the writ petition challenging th~ acquisition proceedings there would not A have been any difficulty. -1 10.

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 B decision in the said writ petition. II. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No ~osts. S. K. S. Appeal disposed of. )