Disposed

Mahabir Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Jan 2013CWJC/9554/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to authorities to proceed with encroachment case under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act regarding disputed land used as public road. Court directed authorities to conclude case merit on own within six weeks after affording reasonable opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authority concerned to conclude encroachment case on merit in accordance with law within six weeks.

Mahabir Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9554 of 2007

¶3

====================================================== Mahabir Yadav son of Late Raghunandan Yadav, resident of village Teghra Police Station, Bisphi (O P- Patauna), Dist. Madhubani.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Madhubani. 3. The Additional Collector, Madhubani. 4. The Subdivisional Officer, Benipatti, District Madhubani. 5. The Circle Officer, Bisphi, Madhubani. 6. The Officer Incharge, Bisphi (O.P. Patauna) Police Station. 7. Sri Baidya Nath Yadav son of Late Uttim Lal Yadav, resident of village Teghra, P.S. Bisphi, Dist. Madhubani. 8. Imlesh Devi, wife of Sri Suresh Yadav, resident of village Teghra, P.S. Bisphi, Dist. Madhuabni. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kr.Jhadd, Advocate For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate Mr. M.D. Dwivedi, S.C.23 Mr. Ram Narayan, A.C. to S.C.23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER

¶5

4 03-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the respondent nos.7 and 8.

¶6

The petitioner seeks direction to the respondent nos.2 to 6 to proceed in accordance with law in the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act,1956 as he alleges that respondent nos.7 and 8 have un-authorizedly encroached public land lbearing Khesra No.2390(Old) appertaining to Khata No.340 measuring an area of 9 Acres and 75 decimals, which is used by general public as “Aam Rasta”. However, learned counsel for the respondent nos.7 and 8 has submitted that this land was settled by Darbhanga Raj in their

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.9554 of 2007 (4) dt.03-01-2013

¶8

2 / 3

¶9

favour.

¶10

However, the State respondent in the counter affidavit, have clearly stated that the land concerned though belonging to ex-landlord Darbhanga Maharaj is of Gairmajarua Aam and has been recorded in the cadastral survey and presently the disputed plot belongs to the Religious Trust allotted for maintenance of the deities. It has also been stated that the Bandobasti shown in the name of Pritam Yadav is forged and fabricated.

¶11

However, in paragraph-7, it has been categorically stated that a Land Encroachment proceeding under Section 2(ii) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act,1956 have commenced and notices have been issued upon the encroacher though learned counsel for respondent nos.7 and 8 denies the fact that any notices have been issued upon them. Surprisingly, in the year and number of the encroachment case concerned has not been disclosed in the counter affidavit which have been filed on 6th November,2009. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to inform the court regarding the further development which happened in the encroachment case. Stand of the petitioner is that nothing has been done and even it is submitted that no case has been registered.

¶12

In above view of the matter, this writ petition is being

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.9554 of 2007 (4) dt.03-01-2013

¶14

3 / 3

¶15

disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned to conclude the encroachment case on its own merit and in accordance with law, after granting reasonable opportunity to all the concerned persons including the private respondents as per the provisions laid down in the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act,1956, within six weeks from today as, according to the state respondent, the proceeding had already been initiated in the year 2009 and notices had been issued to the encroacher.

¶16

It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the cases of the respective parties.

¶17

This disposes of the writ petition.

¶18

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)

¶19

N.H./-

Mahabir Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hira Nand Chaubey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Grijesh Pathak Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Maheshwar Sah and Ors. Vs Dukha Sah

Braj Kishor Mahato Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Most. Bhagwati Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Habib Ansari @ Habib Mian and Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.