Mahendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4982 of 2025 ====================================================== Mahendra Prasad Singh Son of Vishwanath Singh, Resident of VillageBhottichak, Surihari, P.O. - Surihari, P.S. - Auravpur, District - Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 4.
The District Magistrate, Banka.
5.
The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banka.
6.
The Zila Panchayat Raj Officer, Banka.
7.
The Block Development Officer, Amarpur Block, Banka. 8.
The Circle Officer, Amarpur, District - Banka. 9.
The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Amarpur, Banka. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Chandrasekhar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, GA 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent to construct Panchayat Banka in Mauza- Surihari in Sultanpur Panchayat vide Amarpur Anchal/ Block on the avaialble Government Land uses several temples and other Government building are constructed.
2/5 (ii) For holding and declaration that no Mauza Surihari in Sultanpur Panchayat, the available Government Land is fit for construction of Panchayat Bhawan for that there is resolution of DM, Banka and NPD granted by CD, Amarpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was being constructed in Mauza Surihari under Amarpur Block. The petitioner and other covillagers filed an application for construction of Panchayat Bhawan in Sultanpur Panchayat under Amarpur Block. Thereafter, the petitioner and other villagers came to know that the no objection certificate is given regarding construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Surihari Mauza- 276, Khata- 109, Khesra- 766, Rakwa- 30 decimal and of 81 decimal. The petitioner and other co-villagers also filed an application before the District Magistrate, Banka and requested for proper measurement of the lands and to take appropriate action against their application.
4. Learned counsel for the State has taken preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and submits that number of orders have been passed by Division Bench of this Court that the location of Panchayat Bhawan is for the executive to decide and not for the Court to supplement its
3/5 opinion. It shall be wholly inappropriate of this Court to approve executive power to decide the location of Panchayat Bhawan and in the present case the grievance of the petitioner is that the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is being constructed at different plot. Although, under the chairmanship of D.M. Banka, a meeting was held and decision was taken for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan in another location and Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 23833 of 2013 by order dated 09.12.2013 has opined that the location of Panchayat Bhawan is more of an executive policy matter and it is not for the Court to decide whether one location is better than the other and in the recent order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 3282 of 2023 decided on 07.04.
2023 which is quoted hereinbelow:- "The averments in the writ petition discloses that all the petitioners were public representatives of the Gram Panchayat in question at the time the earlier site was selected in 2021. They have alleged that the Gram Sabha comprising of present members and Mukhiya have now initiated shifting of the proposed site for construction of the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan to a place which is not suitable.
Whether the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is
4/5 constructed at site A or B is an issue best left to the people's representatives in the local self government institutions as well as the local authorities to decide based on various factors/parameters Such a decision is essentially a matter of policy.
This Court is, therefore, not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in respect of such policy matters."
5. Learned counsel for the State further submits that apart from that as per the guidelines of the State Government with respect to construction of the Panchayat Bhawan vide dated 07.07.2015, paragraph-4 of that letter suggest that- "
माननीयउचचनयायालयपटनामेपंचायतसरकारभवन केसथलआददसेसंबंदधतदायरदरटयादचकासी०डबलू०जे०सी०सं० 18446/2013 भूपनारायणठाकुरबनामराजयसरकारएवंअनयमे खडपीठदारापादरतनयायादेशददनांक26.09.2013, सी०डबलू० जे०सी०सं०23833/2013 रामदकशोरठाकुरएवंअनयबनामराजय सरकारएवंअनयमेखंडपीठदारापादरतनयायादेशददनांक0912 2013 तथासी०डबलू०जे०सी०सं०19585/2013 राजपालदमश्राबनाम राजयसरकारएवंअनयमेएकलपीठदारापादरतनयायादेशददनांक 21:01 2015 मेयहप्रेकणदकयागयाहैदकपंचायतसरकारभवनकी अवदसथदततथादनमारणआददकेसंबंधमेदनणरयलेनाकायरपादलका नीदतकादवषयहैऔरइसमेनयादयकहसतकेपवांछनीयनहींहै।"
5/5
6. Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the Division Bench order of this Hon'ble Court, no case is made out for interference of this Court.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U