In a writ petition, the High Court found petitioners lacked legal right to land possession despite Supreme Court observations on rehabilitation. The Court refrained from issuing directions, instructing petitioners to approach the State Government for rehabilitation consideration.
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.2064 of 2018
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.2064 of 2018(3) dt.08-04-2019 2/5
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Rani Kumari, Adv. For the State : Ms. Pushpanjali Sharma, AC to SC-20 For the Zila Parishad, Rohtas: Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.2064 of 2018(3) dt.08-04-2019 3/5
respondent Nagar Parishad, Dehri-Dalmiya Nagar, DistrictRohtas.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent Nagar Parishad is not abiding by the directions and observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1134 of 1971. It is submitted that in the earlier round of litigation although the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the Civil Appeal preferred by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Sahabad and others, but in the operative part of its judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been pleased to record the following observations:-
“…... But in view of the fact that the respondents have been in possession of the land in question for over 35 years and it will cause considerable hardship to them if they are thrown immediately, we would direct that they shall not be evicted from the land until the expiration of a period of six months from today. In the meanwhile, we would ask the State Government to consider the question of giving alternative land to the respondents so that they may be rehabilitated. We hope and trust that the State Government will be able to provide alternative land to the respondents before the period of six months is over.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no doubt the petitioners have lost their right to continue in possession over the land in question, but at the same time by virtue of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the State Government is liable to consider the question of giving alternative land to the respondents so that they may be
Patna High Court CWJC No.2064 of 2018(3) dt.08-04-2019 4/5
rehabilitated. Learned counsel submits that these petitioners were respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the State however submits that the fact that these petitioners were the respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court will be required to be examined. It is submitted that since the petitioners have no legal right to continue on the land in question, this Court while sitting in its writ jurisdiction may not grant any injunction against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners, however, the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Dehri-Dalmiya Nagar, District-Rohtas would be only competent to look into the grievance of the petitioners and do the needful, if so required, in consultation with the State Government.
No one appears on behalf of the Nagar Parishad, Dehri-Dalmiya Nagar, District-Rohtas.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the petitioners are unable to establish any legal right to continue on the land in question, however, it is their case by virtue of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the State of Bihar would be obliged to consider the question of their rehabilitation. If it is so, it is open to the petitioners to represent their case to the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.2064 of 2018(3) dt.08-04-2019 5/5
Government for consideration if not already considered in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which may be considered expeditiously. This Court, would, however refrain from giving any direction from its end.
The writ application stands disposed off accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
arvind/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can seek an injunction against eviction based on Supreme Court observations in a related appeal.
Whether the State is obligated to consider rehabilitation of the petitioner despite lack of legal right to continue in possession.
Whether this Court can grant directions for rehabilitation in a writ petition where the petitioner lacks legal right to possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Supreme Court observations regarding land possession and rehabilitationReferred¶45
Civil Appeal No.1134 of 1971
Md. Subahan Mansuri @ Subhan Mansuri and others
The State Of Bihar and others
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
