Patna High CourtL.P.A/1003/2015dismissed

Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-08-02Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1003 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1488 of 2015 =========================================================== Ranjit Kumar son of Sri Vidyanand Singh, resident of village and P.S. Daniawan, District - Patna .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Collector, Patna.

4. The Deputy Development commissioner, Patna.

5. The District Fisheries Officer, Patna.

6. The Block Development Officer, Daniawan , District Patna.

7. The Circle Officer, Daniawan, District Patna

8. The Executive Engineer, L.A.E.O. works Division - I, Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant :

Mr. V.R.P.Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajan, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, S.C.-19 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, AC to SC-19 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 02-08-2017 Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State. Perused the impugned order dated 13.03.2015. The learned single Judge has rightly taken an objective view of the matter keeping the actual ground reality with regard to the so-called water body whose nature is sought to be changed by construction of a Panchayat Bhawan.

From perusal of the materials on record in the writ

Patna High Court LPA No.1003 of 2015 dt.02-08-2017 2/2 application, it seems that the Panchayat itself has taken a decision and such a decision has been acted upon after verifying the status of the so-called water body. The area, which is being used for the construction of Panchayat Bhawan, is also for a public purpose and since the water body is said to be in the area of 4.8 acres, only a fraction thereof in one portion, which does not alter the character of rest of the area, is being used for construction of the Panchayat Bhawan.

In view of the same there has to be a balancing of the two interests of the residents of the village. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge especially when a clear and categorical affidavit is also filed on behalf of the District Magistrate stating the position.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 02.08.2017 Transmission Date N/A