IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1366 of 2006
RAJENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM SWARUP SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILALGE+ P.O. KHUTAHA(DIH), P.S.
BARAHIYA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT SHIVPURI COLONY CHAS, P.O. JODHADIH, BOKARO
MORE, P.S. CHAS, DISTRICT BOKARO(JHARKHAND).
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.
2. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, N.B. BHAWAN,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
3. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAKHISARAI.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING
ORGANISATION, LAKHISARAI.
6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIOENR,
LAKHISARAI.
7. MUNNI RAI, CONTRACTOR, SON OF NOT KNOWN
RESIDENT OF VILL KALYANPUR, P.S. KALYANPUR,
DISTRICT LAKHISARAI THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION,
SHEIKHPURA.
For the petitioner : Mr. Binod Kr. Singh, Advocate.
For the NBCC : Mr. Satish Kr. Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Binay Kumar, AC to GP-13.
-----------
08. 24.01.2011 In compliance of the orders of this Court dated 30.06.2010
passed in the instant case the State respondents have filed
supplementary counter affidavit affirmed by the Executive Engineer,
Rural Works Department, Works Division, Sheikhpura without
enclosing the khatiyan of plot no.816 appertaining to khata no.425 of
village Kalyanpur within Barahiya block of Lakhisarai district.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the
counsel for the National Building Construction Corporation.
3. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia to
-2-
direct the State respondents to remove the metalled road laid over the
lands in question to the extent of 65 decimals as the said land is
recorded in the khatiyan as raiyati land of the grandfather of the
petitioner i.e. Raghu Singh and others. Current rent receipt of the
lands in question is also issued in the name of the father of the
petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that until
presumption of correctness of the entries in the khatiyan is rebutted by
the State respondents the lands in question is to be taken as raiyati
land of the petitioner and without his consent the metalled road should
not have been laid over the lands in question.
4. In spite of the directions of the High Court contained in
order dated 30.6.2010 to produce the evidence to establish that the
lands in question is a road, the authorities have not chosen to produce
even a chit of evidence in support of such contention. Accordingly, I
direct the State Respondents to appear before the Circle Officer,
Barahiya and produce before him the khatiyan of the lands in question
as also the current rent receipt, whereafter the Circle Officer should
satisfy himself about the fact that the lands in question are the raiyati
lands of the petitioner and over the same the road cannot be laid
without the consent of the petitioner. If the Circle Officer is satisfied
with the perusal of the khatiyan that the lands in question are recorded
in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner and the current rent
receipt is in the name of the father of the petitioner, he shall direct the
authorities of the National Building Construction Corporation to
remove the metalled road from the lands in question and restore the
-3-
land to the same position as it was prior to the laying of the road over
the same. Appropriate order in this regard be passed by the Circle
Officer, Barahiya, as early as possible, in any case within two months
after receipt of the representation of the petitioner containing a copy of
this order as also the khatiyan and current rent receipt of the lands in
question. If the Circle Officer concludes that the lands are the raiyati
lands of the petitioner then within the same time he shall ensure that
the road laid over the lands in question be removed.
5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)