Dismissed

Md. Manirudin v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC9 Jan 2015CWJC/13220/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a PIL opposing Gram Panchayat office construction on Plot No.865, alleging it is a water channel. Court noted respondents classified land as uncultivated public/common land and found no evidence of a water channel or objection to prior occupation, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Preliminary reference indicates no order on interlocutory applications.

Md. Manirudin Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13220 of 2014

¶3

====================================================== Md. Manirudin, Son of Late Zakir Uddin, Resident of Village- Satua, P.O and P.S. Meskaur, District- Nawadah. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt.of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Nawadah. 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Nawadah. 5. The Circle Officer Meskaur, Nawada. 6. The Block Development Officer, Meskaur, Nawada 7. The Mukhiya, Tetariya Gram Panchayat, Block- Meskaur, DistrictNawadah. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S.Barnawal- GA5 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 09-01-2015 The petitioner is a resident of Satua village which is part of Tetariya Gram Panchayat in the District of Nawada, Bihar. He filed this writ petition in public interest complaining that the respondents are constructing the building for Gram Paychayat office in Survey Plot No.865 which, according to him, is a part of a water channel. He submits that in case the building is constructed on proposal base, it would obstruct the free

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.13220 of 2014 (2) dt.09-01-2015

¶5

2/3

¶6

flow of water. He alleges that other lands in various survey plots are available and the place is chosen only with ulterior motive.

¶7

On behalf of the respondents a detailed counter affidavit is filed. They dispute the classification of the land as a part of any water channel. It is stated that Survey Plot No.865 is classified as “uncultivated public land”. They submit that the place was chosen for the benefit of local people and the writ petition is filed with an oblique motive.

¶8

Heard Shri Prashant Sinha and Shri Awadhesh Kuamar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9

In case the Gram Panchayat building is constructed across a water channel, as alleged by the petitioner, this Court would have certainly interfered. The respondents have categorically stated that the land on which the building is proposed to be constructed is not part of any water channel and, on the other hand, it is classified as common land. Even from the sketch submitted by the petitioner, it is evident that the land is not part of any water channel and at the most it is a

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.13220 of 2014 (2) dt.09-01-2015

¶11

3/3

¶12

place where water was accumulating on account of its being vacant. The record also discloses that the land in Survey Plot No.865 was occupied by some private parties and the petitioner did not raise any objection to the same.

¶13

We do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. We, therefore, dismissed the writ petition.

¶14

Interlocutory application, if any, stands

¶15

disposed of.

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ)

¶18

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

¶19

K.C.jha/U

Md. Manirudin v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Manirudin 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

Shalini Andrews Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Singh @ Dr. Sanjay Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mazharul Hassan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sidheshwar Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Randhir Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Rajhib Azam Vs The Union Of India and Ors.