JUDGMENT This writ petition was filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to remove the encroachment including the road constructed by them on the admitted land of the petitioner in his absence and to refill the land of the petitioner from which the soil was taken by the authorities concerned without the permission of petitioner. (ii) A writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent-authorities from interfering with the right, title and possession of the petitioner over the land in question. (iii) To direct the concerned respondent-authorities to compensate the loss accrued to the petitioner due to illegal and high-handed acts of authorities and also to pay heavy damage and cost for undue harassment caused to the petitioner. (iv) To direct respondents no. 1 to 3 to take serious action against its officers and employees who were responsible for such heinous act causing grievous loss to the charitable purposes of the Wakf Estate. (v)To restrain the concerned respondent-authorities from using the land in question of the petitioner without adopting any procedure of land acquisition and payment ofr the entire compensation etc. in accordance with law. (vi)Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled. 2. Initially this writ petition was filed against the State of Bihar and its authorities (respondents no. 1 to 7) and the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (respondent no.8), but subsequently National Project Construction Corporation Limited and its Project Manager of Bihar Zone were added as respondents no. 9 and 10 vide order dated 15.03.2011 at the instance of the petitioner, who filed I.A. No. 9266 of 2010 for the said purpose on the ground that respondent-authorities had assigned the work of construction of the roads to the said Corporation, which had constructed the road in question through the land of the petitioner, which was not opposed by any of the respondents. 3. 3. Thereafter the residents of the village in question as well as of the surrounding villages, namely, Dashrathpur, Barabigha and Saidaki filed I.A. No. 1985 of 2011 for being impleaded as party-respondents claiming that their impleadment was necessary to safeguard the interest of the people of the said villages as they were beneficiaries of the road and any effort made by respondent-authorities to remove the road was bound to adversely affect the people of the said villages and their economical developments. The said interlocutory application was also allowed without any objection from any one by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2011 and the said interveners were impleaded as respondents no. 11 to 16 to the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that it is a very old and renowed Wakf of the State with respect to the Dargah and Khanquah of the great Sufi Saint of Bihar, namely, Makhdumul Mulk Sheikh Sharfuddin Ahmad Yahiya Maneri. When the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board’ for the sake of brevity) first came into existence, the said Wakf Estate was recorded as Wakf Estate No. 22 in the Board along with its several properties situated in the town of Biharsharif and also in village of Dashrathpur, P.S. Giriyak in the district of Nalanda, which included an orchard named as Baghkalan situated in village Dasrathpur under Tauzi No. 157, which was rent free (Lakheraj) as it was dedicated in the name of great Saint. The said orchard consists of plot no. 900(22.7 acres) of khata no. 246 and plot no. 928 (9.20 acres) of khata no. 290 and plot no. 918 (9.20 acres) of khata no. 246, all under Thana no. 335, Tauzi no. 157 C/4 under Giriyak Police Station in the district of Nalanda, over which mango orchard is situated since much before cadastral survey, wherein the said orchard was recorded in the name of petitioner-Wakf Estate and is still continuing in the khas possession of the Wakf Estate through its present Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli Mohammad Saifuddin Firdousi. 5. 335, Tauzi no. 157 C/4 under Giriyak Police Station in the district of Nalanda, over which mango orchard is situated since much before cadastral survey, wherein the said orchard was recorded in the name of petitioner-Wakf Estate and is still continuing in the khas possession of the Wakf Estate through its present Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli Mohammad Saifuddin Firdousi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the title and possession of the petitioner over the said land and orchard had never been disputed by either of the authorities or any one else and the Government receipts have been throughout issued in the name of the petitioner with respect to the said land without any objection from any quarter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that on 20.06.2008 while the said Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli of the petitioner Wakf Estate had gone out of State for some important works, respondent-authorities through their employees and men came to the said orchard/land with bulldozers and machines and started digging the land without any permission of the petitioner and also started filling up portions of orchard lands 10 feet wide from northern side to southern side without even adopting any procedure of acquisition and in that process filled up 1.50 acres of the said plots for construction of the newly proposed road, for which purpose soil was taken from about 60 decimals of further land of the orchard destroying its productivity. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that when the said Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli of the petitioner-Wakf Estate returned to Biharsharif and learnt about the said act of respondent-authorities, he filed a detailed application before the Collector of Nalanda and other authorities requesting them to stop the said work and refrain from disturbing the possession of the petitioner and restore it to its original position. On the basis of the said application of the petitioner, the Collector of the district directed the Circle Officer of Giriyak to enquire into the matter and submit a report, whereafter the said Circle Officer enquired into the matter and submitted his report dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure 4) clearly affirming the claim of the petitioner and proposing to take steps for compensating the petitioner for the aforesaid loss. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Collector of the district made enquiries and found the claim of the petitioner to be justified and, accordingly, wrote letter dated 22.01.2009 (Annexure 5) to the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna stating the entire matter in detail and describing the area, over which the road was constructed as well as the area from where soil was removed and also clearly stating that those lands belonged to the petitioner and the said road was constructed without obtaining permission from the petitioner and also without taking any step and without following the procedure of land acquisition and hence it was requested by the Collector of the district that the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act be initiated for the said purpose. However, inspite of the aforesaid specific finding of the Collector of the district, the enquiry report of Circle Officer and the application of petitioner, respondent-authorities did not take any action nor did they return the land in question to the petitioner nor any step had been initiated for compensation. Hence the petitioner having no other remedy filed this writ petition before this Court on 14.09.2009. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities (respondents no. 1to 7) stated that a road already existed in the orchard in question and hence under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna only the road existing since 1976 and twice repaired, was widened, upgraded and constructed into an all weather road by the Corporation (respondents no.9 and 10), but at the relevant time the petitioner neither raised any objection nor did it bring the matter to the knowledge of the district administration and only when the road was now complete, this objection has been raised, which is not legal and proper. 10. Learned counsel for the Corporation and its authorities (respondents no. 9 and 10) also contested the claim of the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit and claimed that the Corporation had taken up construction/ upgradation of the said existing road only under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (hereinafter referred to as `the Yojna’ for the sake of brevity) started in the year 2000 and the owner of the road was Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar. It was also stated that as envisaged under the Yojna Scheme , the State of Bihar constituted program implementation unit, Nalanda to determine the alignment of road and availability of land for the purpose of construction of rod in question under the Scheme and to prepare a detailed project report. 11. Learned counsel for respondents no. 9 and 10 submitted that the availability of the land for construction of the said road was determined by the concerned Unit/Department of the State Government and on the basis of that report and other materials, a clearance certificate was granted by the Central Level Empowered Committee and only thereafter the proposal along with land availability report and detailed project report was scrutinized by the State Level Standing Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, whereafter it was placed before the State Technical Agency and after exhausting all the aforesaid processes, the State Government sent the project proposal along with the Land Availability Certificate to the Central Level Empowered Committee and only on the issuance of the clearance certificate by the Central Level Empowered Committee to the State of Bihar, the said Corporation, which is the executing agency, was appointed through the procedures of tenders and selection, whereafter the existing village road (soiled) was constructed, upgraded and metalled under the Yojna by the contractor under the supervision of respondent-Corporation. 12. It was averred by learned counsel for respondents no. 9 and 10 that the Corporation never had any intention to encroach over the private land of any particular individual while constructing the road under the Yojna rather during the entire period of construction of road, the petitioner did not raise any objection and only after the completion of the road, the petitioner has started making such claim although the Corporation is not the decision making body rather it is only an executing agency for the construction of road under the PMGSY, which does not provide any fund for land acquisition. 13. Although no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (respondent no.8), but its learned counsel supported the claim of the petitioner Wakf State, which was duly registered under the said Board along with its entire properties including the land/orchard, which is involved in the instant writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for private respondents no. Although no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (respondent no.8), but its learned counsel supported the claim of the petitioner Wakf State, which was duly registered under the said Board along with its entire properties including the land/orchard, which is involved in the instant writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for private respondents no. 11 to 16, who represent the people of the area and were added without any objection from any of the parties to the writ petition, claimed that the suggestion made on behalf of the State of Bihar and its authorities that it might become ready to remove and dismantle the road in question if the land belonged to the petitioner is absolutely frivolous as it is bound to cause serious prejudice to the general public of the area. It was also stated that the people of the area had been in need of a road since a long time and after much delay the road in question had been constructed, which is of a great benefit to the public at large and has fulfilled a long cherished need of the locality and hence the State of Bihr being a benevolent State must take all steps necessary including payment of compensation to the writ petitioner in order to maintain the existence of road in question, which has been constructed on the orchard land of the petitioner without its consent. 15. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, the admitted facts are that the entire orchard with its land bearing plots no. 900, 928 and 918 belongs to the petitioner and is so recorded in the Government records as well as in the records of the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board. It is also not in dispute that respondent-authorities have constructed a road in the middle of the said plots through the entire length from west to east, which, according to the report of the Anchal Adhikari, Giriyak dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure 4) and the report/letter of the Collector, Nalanda dated 22.01.2009 (Annexure 5), covered an area totally measuring 2.0725 acres and its lengths and breadths are as follows :- Plot no. 928- 1150 x 65 kari= 74.5dec. Plot no. 900- 750 x 65 kari= 49 dec. Plot no. 900- 1200 x 20 kari= 24 dec. 1.475Acres Plot no.928 790 x 11 ft. 20 dec. 928- 1150 x 65 kari= 74.5dec. Plot no. 900- 750 x 65 kari= 49 dec. Plot no. 900- 1200 x 20 kari= 24 dec. 1.475Acres Plot no.928 790 x 11 ft. 20 dec. Plot no. 900 175x30 ft. 12 dec. Plot no. 900 200 x 36 ft. 16.5 dec. Plot no. 900 495 x 10 ft. 11.25 dec. 0.5975 Acre 16. This fact has also not been disputed by any of the respondents that in villages it is usually seen that the people use the boundary Ahar of agricultural plots and orchard lands for short cut purposes, but that does not mean that it has become a permanent Rasta. Hence the claim of respondent-authorities that the land in question was a public Rasta from before is quite atrocious and misleading as they could not support their claim by any material whatsoever. Hence on that pretext the authorities concerned were not justified in grabbing the land of the petitioner specially when respondent-authorities represent a welfare State, the primary duty of which is to safeguard and provide security to the people and their properties and not to grab their lands etc. for any purpose whatsoever, more so when specific statutes have been enacted for the purpose of acquiring the land of individual if such land for any adequate purpose is required by the State Government. 17. Similar matters bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 (Asaiser Sah and another vrs. The State of Bihar and others) along with other analogous cases came up before a Bench of this Court and after considering the matter in detail the said writ petitions were disposed of on 02.05.2011 giving the following directions :- “(a) Any petitioner aggrieved by the alleged forcible intrusion into his lands for any of the aforesaid purposes may represent before the District Magistrate within a period of four weeks of the present order. The time period shall necessarily vary where a person has approached this Court in any other writ application to be computed from the date of the direction therein. In any other case, this period has to be computed from the date of such intrusion. (b) If the application is not filed within the time prescribed, the District Magistrate shall be under no obligation to hold such enquiry, but without prejudice to the other legal rights. (c) The representation must be supported by documentary evidence. In any other case, this period has to be computed from the date of such intrusion. (b) If the application is not filed within the time prescribed, the District Magistrate shall be under no obligation to hold such enquiry, but without prejudice to the other legal rights. (c) The representation must be supported by documentary evidence. The District Magistrate shall be under no obligation to consider simple representations without supporting documents in the form of a roving enquiry. (d) The District Magistrate shall either enquire into the matter himself or designate a senior government functionary to hold the enquiry. The applicant shall be informed of the date and time of enquiry. Any measurements shall be taken in his presence only. If there have been any earlier enquiries and reports, it shall necessarily have to be taken into consideration. (e) Any construction work done during the pendency of such enquiry shall be entirely at the risk and responsibility of the respondents to abide by the final orders that may be passed in such enquiry. (f) If the allegations of any forcible intrusion are found to be correct, the District Magistrate shall take appropriate action to forthwith desist and to restore the lands in an appropriate manner. (g) Nothing in the present order shall preclude the State Government, if it so desires, to proceed under the laws of the land for acquisition, direct negotiation or any other mode or method to justify lawful activity on the lands. (h) In cases where rival competing claims are made with regard to ownership of the lands involving complicated questions of title, quite obviously, the executive enquiry shall not be competent to decide the same. In that event the contesting parties shall have to approach the competent civil court for appropriate orders. (i) In cases where there have been negligible intrusions, not more than two feet, it shall not merit any consideration or enquiry.” 18. In that event the contesting parties shall have to approach the competent civil court for appropriate orders. (i) In cases where there have been negligible intrusions, not more than two feet, it shall not merit any consideration or enquiry.” 18. So far the directions contained in Clause (a) to Clause (e) are concerned, it is not in dispute that the Sajjadanashin-cum Mutawalli of the petitioner was out of State at the relevant time and hence the construction of road was made behind his back and immediately after he returned and came to know about the said fact, he filed an application before the Collector, Nalanda, who asked the Anchal Adhikari, Giriyak to hold an enquiry, whereafter the said Anchal Adhikari submitted his report on 30.08.2008 (Annexure 4) and thereafter the Collector, Nalanda also held enquiry and sent his letter/report dated 22.01.2009 (Annexure 5) to the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna finding the application of the petitioner to be justified and recommending that in the aforesaid facts land acquisition proceeding was necessary and steps might be taken in that regard under the Land Acquisition Act. 19. Thus, it is apparent that the Collector and the Anchal Adhikari had held detailed enquiry in the matter, during which measurement was also taken and it was specifically found that the authorities have made forceful intrusion upon the land of the petitioner and had made the road upon 2.0725 acres of petitioner’s lands. Hence the said road construction work was entirely at the risk and responsibility of respondent-authorities and they were bound to abide by final orders passed in such enquiry. 20. So far Clause (f) and Clause (g) of the said decision of the Bench of this Court dated 02.05.2011 are concerned, it is not disputed by the petitioner that construction of road has already been made by respondent-authorities and the people of the area are using the said road. Intervenor-respondents, who represent the people of the area, have also claimed that the said road was necessary for the benefit of the people and development of the area and the suggestion of respondent-authorities to dismantle the road in question was bound to cause serious prejudice to the general public of the area. Intervenor-respondents, who represent the people of the area, have also claimed that the said road was necessary for the benefit of the people and development of the area and the suggestion of respondent-authorities to dismantle the road in question was bound to cause serious prejudice to the general public of the area. It was further suggested by them that the State of Bihar, being a benevolent State, must take all necessary steps including payment of compensation to the petitioner in order to maintain the existence of the road in question. In the said circumstances, dismantling of the road and restoration of the land used for road to the petitioner does not appear to be justified. 21. So far Clause (h) and Clause (i) of the said decision dated 02.05.2011 are concerned, they are not applicable to the instant case as there is no rival competing claims nor any intrusion/construction on the land of the petitioner can be said to be negligible as the same is not less than 2 feet, rather it is more than 2 acres. 22. In the aforesaid circumstances, dismantling of road and return of land to the petitioner instead of solving any problem would create a lot of problems for the general public, who are using the road and also for the authorities, who had spent lot of money upon the said construction. Hence due to the arbitrary steps taken by the authorities, the people of the area or even the State exchequer must not be allowed to suffer. A similar matter had come up before the Apex Court vide Civil Appeals No. 7016-7017 of 2005 and 7078 of 2005, which was decided vide order dated 22.11.2005 in the case of Competent Authority versus Barangore Jute Factory. 23. Thus, the only option left for the authorities of the State of Bihar is to take immediate steps under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land already used in the road and its flanks as it is quite apparent from the pleadings of respondent-Corporation and its authorities that the authorities of the State of Bihar had determined that the road shall be constructed over the land in question and only thereafter the Corporation was appointed as the Executing Agent and as per the directions of the authorities of the State of Bihar, the road was constructed and metalled under the Yojna. 24. 24. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision of another Bench of this Court dated 02.05.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2490 of 2010 (Asaiser Sah and another vrs. The State of Bihar and others) along with other analogous cases, according to which the only remedy left in this case is immediate acquisition of the land, on which road has already been constructed, and payment of compensation to the land owner, namely, the petitioner as per the present market value of the land used in the road measuring 2.0725 acres. Such a land acquisition proceeding under section 17 of the Act must be started immediately within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and it must be completed within six months thereafter. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to construct its boundary wall on both sides immediately after the breadth of the above detailed land used in the said road.