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

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 23-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM PRASAD RAI @ RAM PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASA YAT AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, I950; Article 226: 
Land acquisition proceeding-Challenged by petitioners-appellant-
C 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 
D construction of road on the land, the acquisition of which 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. 
E 
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 
F 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. 
G 
H 
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 
40 
1 
-
) 
~ 
RAM PRASAD RAI @RAM PRASAD SINGH v. STA TE OFBIHAR [PASAYA T, J.] 
41 
no way affects the appellants. 
A 
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 B 
of the roads would be operative after the disposal of the 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. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 3.8.2004 of the High Court of c 
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 D 
Pandey for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. I. Leave granted. 
E 
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: 
F 
4. A Writ Petition was filed by the appellants questioning the legality 
of the 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 
G 
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 inter-
alia was made to the effect that the respondents therein should be commanded 
by a writ of mandamus 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 H 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.