A writ petition was dismissed where petitioners sought to quash land disposal orders based on alleged encroachment, in the absence of specific adverse possession pleas or procedural violations.
Writ application dismissed affirming orders directing removal of encroachment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12224 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Rameshwar Das son of Late Bhagalu Das resident of Ward No. 15/21 P.O. and P.S. Forbesganj District Araria
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to SC 16
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER
The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 14.3.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Land Dispute Appeal No. 126 of 2011 by which he has confirmed the order dated 6.9.2011 of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in Case No. 08 of 2011-12 directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment of 40 centimeters in width north-south and 23 meters in length east-west on Plot No.325 of Khata No. 266 of Mauja Kirkichia belonging to the private respondent No.2.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12224 of 2012 (6) dt.16-09-2013
2
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent DCLR and the Commissioner have not considered the fact that the petitioners had constructed their house and were living there since a long period of time for which no steps were taken by the private respondent and thus the orders of the respondents are bad in law. However, neither from the writ petition nor from the impugned orders of the DCLR and the Commissioner it appears that any specific plea of adverse possession of the house for a specific number of years has been taken therein.
It is evident that the decisions of the authorities had been given on the basis of not only the earlier measurement made by the Anchal Amin of the Forbesganj Nagar Parishad in which it was found that the petitioners had encroached 70 centimeters width x 23 meter length but also according to the measurement made by the Circle Amin who had found that the petitioners had encroached to the extent of 40 centimeters x 23 meters of land of the private respondent. The measurement made by the Anchal Amin had been duly signed by the petitioners. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the respective plots of land and the petitioners have no claim over the land of the private respondent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12224 of 2012 (6) dt.16-09-2013
3
In the aforesaid factual matrix it cannot be said that the orders of the respondent DCLR and the Commissioner are contrary to law or there has been any violation of the due procedure which may call for interference from the Court in its judicial review jurisdiction.
The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
spal/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the orders directing removal of encroachment were contrary to law or violative of due procedure warranting judicial interference.
Rameshwar Das
Dinesh Das
Umesh Das
State of Bihar
Ramanand Das
D.C.D.R.
Ramesh Kumar Datta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
