Disposed

Md. Shoyeb Aazam @ Md. Sohel Ahmed v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Jun 2013CWJC/10761/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a show cause notice in a public land encroachment proceeding. Court held it not open to approach writ court against notice, directing petitioner to challenge the final order before the statutory appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of with liberty to challenge the final order before the appellate authority within four weeks; certified copy to be supplied within three days upon application.

Md. Shoyeb Aazam @ Md. Sohel Ahmed Vs The State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.10761 of 2012 (4) dt.17-06-2013 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10761 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Md. Shoyeb Aazam @ Md. Sohel Ahmed Son of Late Md. Jainuddin Resident of Village + P.O. Satamalpur P.S. Warish Nagar District Samastipur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector of the District Samastipur 2. Additional Collector, Samastipur 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Samastipur 4. Anchal Adhikari, Samastipur Anchal District Samastipur 5. Headmaster, Model High School Samastipur Town, Samastipur 6. Mosmat Saliman Nisha Wife of Late Md. Salim Resident of Village + P.O. Bahadurpur Ward No. 21 (Old) Samastipur Town P.S. + District Samastipur 7. Md. Qudus Son of Late Md. Salim Resident of Village + P.O. Bahadurpur Ward No. 21 (Old) Samastipur Town P.S. + District Samastipur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 4 17-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the show cause notice dated 23.4.2012 issued by respondent No.4, the Circle Officer, Samastipur in a Public Land Encroachment Proceeding.

¶4

The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed is that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice in the encroachment proceeding and was pursuing two remedies which is not permissible.

¶5

Without giving the specific reply to the aforesaid stand in

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.10761 of 2012 (4) dt.17-06-2013 2

¶7

the rejoinder to the counter affidavit it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said statement made on behalf of the respondents is not correct and the final order in encroachment case dated 22.5.2012 has been passed by respondent No.4 without hearing the petitioner and the petitioner came to know about the said order only on receipt of copy of the counter affidavit on 8.4.2013.

¶8

On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that it was not open to the petitioner to have approached this Court against the show cause notice in a Public Land Encroachment Proceeding and the proper course to the petitioner should have been to have contested the said matter before the authorities under the Public Land Encroachment Act who are competent to decide the matter considering the entire facts and circumstances.

¶9

Be that as it may, since the final order has been passed in the encroachment case on 22.5.2012, which is an appealable order, the writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appellate authority under the Act.

¶10

In case such an appeal is filed before the appellate authority within a period of four weeks from today along with an application for condoning the delay in filing the same then the

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.10761 of 2012 (4) dt.17-06-2013 3

¶12

same shall be considered by the appellate authority keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had been pursuing his remedies before this Court. It is further made clear that if the petitioner applies for certified copy of the order dated 22.5.2012 the same should be supplied to him within a period of three days from the filing of the application for the same.

¶13

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶14

spal/-

Md. Shoyeb Aazam @ Md. Sohel Ahmed v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Shoyeb Aazam @ Md. Sohel Ahmed v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Kumar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

M/s Bikaner Assam Road Lines India Ltd. and Ors. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Md.Mazid @ Md.Tufani and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar @ Sandip Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sajjad Alam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.