Dismissed

Mohan Sahni v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jun 2019CWJC/20688/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an encroachment removal order under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. The Court held the petition lacks merit as the parties had a statutory appeal remedy and failed to show jurisdictional errors by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed. The petitioners are permitted to pursue the statutory appeal if advised.

Mohan Sahni Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20688 of 2018

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Mohan Sahni S/o Late Khublal Sahni. Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶4

Jagdish Pandit S/o Jodhan Pandit, Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶5

Bhikhari Choudhary S/o Sukhram Choudhary Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶6

Paras Choudhary S/o Sukhram Choudhary Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶7

Ram Ekbal Chaudahry S/o Sukhram Choudhary Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶8

Uma Choudhary @ Uma Shankar Choudhary S/o Chandrika Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶9

Sohan Sahni S/o Late Khublal Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶10

Kumud Sahni S/o Gajadhar Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶11

Dilip Sahni S/o Mohan Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶12

Raj KUmar Sahni S/o Mohan Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶13

Sahdeo Sah S/o Raunak Sah Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj DistrictMuzaffarpur

¶14

Moti Sah S/o Ram Nath Sah Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj DistrictMuzaffarpur

¶15

Shanti Devi W/o Jagarnath Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶16

Bahadur Sahni S/o Dajaur Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶17

Nawal Sahni S/o Jodhi Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶18

Vijay Sahni S/o Chauthi Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶19

Keshwar Sahni S/o Gyani Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶20

Pukar Pandit S/o Jodhan Pandit, Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶21

Panchiya Devi W/o Garyuni Sahni Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur

¶22

Malti Devi W/o Sanjay Sah Resident of Village-Sasna, P.S. Baruraj DistrictMuzaffarpur

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.20688 of 2018(2) dt.10-06-2019 2/5

¶24

... ... Petitioner/s

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶27

The Director, Bihar Land Reform, Patna.

¶28

¶29

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

¶30

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (West)

¶31

The Circle Officer, Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur.

¶32

... ... Respondent/s

¶33

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinod Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rakesh Ranjan, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶34

2 10-06-2019

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.

¶36

Petitioners, in the present case, are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the action towards removal of the encroachment by virtue of the order passed by the competent authority under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1988 as contained in memo no.85 dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ application.

¶37

It is the case of the petitioners that they have come to occupy the land by virtue of the parcha issued to them being landless persons.

¶38

Learned counsel for the State submits that prior to passing of the order under Section 6(e) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.20688 of 2018(2) dt.10-06-2019 3/5

¶40

competent authority had issued notice under Section 3 to the petitioners and the petitioners were given opportunity to show cause but they failed to submit any proof with regard to their occupation on the land which is a public land as defined under the Act. It is submitted that in the writ application also the petitioners have not controverted the fact that they have been served a notice under Section 3 of the Act, but they failed to respond.

¶41

It is further pointed out that a statutory appeal in terms of Section 11 of the Act would lie against the impugned order, therefore, there is no reason as to why the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be entertained.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that in the impugned order passed under Section 6(e) of the Act, the competent authority has recorded as under:-

¶43

^^;w catfj;s uksfVl vki lHkh dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki lHkh us ekStk lluk esa vofLFkr ljdkjh Hkwfe ftldk [kkrk 186 [ksljk 1311 tks fcgkj ljdkj dh Hkwfe gS] bls vki lHkh yksxksa us vfrØe.k dj j[kk gSA vfrØe.k dk Lo:i mYysf[kr gSA KkrO; gS fd vapy dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 1765 fnukad 3-11-16 ds }kjk fcgkj yksd Hkwfe vfrØfer vf/kfu;e 1956 ds /kkjk 3 ds rgr vki lHkh dks uksfVl bl dk;kZy; ls fuxZr fd;k x;k FkkA vki lHkh ls vfrØe.k ls laca/k esa dkj.k i`PNk dh xbZ FkhA ijarq vki lHkh ds }kjk vfrØfer Hkwfe ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkidks lwfpr djuk vko”;d gS] fd vkius ftl Hkwfe dks vfrØfer dj j[kk gS og yksd Hkwfe gSA

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.20688 of 2018(2) dt.10-06-2019 4/5

¶45

vr% vkidks fcgkj yksd Hkwfe vfrØe.k vf/kfu;e 1956 ds /kkjk 6 (E) ds rgr vafre uksfVl nsrs gq, vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd vki lHkh i= izkfIr ds 15 ¼ianzg½ fnukas ds vanj mDr Hkwfe ij ls viuk vfrØe.k gVk ys] ugha rks iz”kklu ck/; gksdj mDr vfrØe.k gVk nxh ,o s gVkus ds Øe esa tks Hkh [kpZ gksxk bldh a HkjikbZ vki lHkh ls dh tk;sxh A**

¶46

In the writ application there is no statement that what

¶47

have been stated by the competent authority in Annexure-1 are incorrect or otherwise wrong. There is no statement that the petitioners had not received any notice or that they had not failed to submit their proof of occupation over the land. What has been stated by the petitioners is that they have filed a representation before the concerned authority which are not being considered.

¶48

A perusal of the representation as contained in Annexure-5 would show that it has a date 27.01.2017 i.e. after passing of the impugned order. Apparently, the representation as contained in Annexure-5 has no statutory sanction. The petitioners have not availed the remedy of statutory appeal and have directly moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without placing adequate pleadings on record. This Court, in the given facts and circumstances, is unable to entertain the writ application for two reasons i.e. firstly the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal in terms of Section 11 of the Act and secondly the petitioners have failed to

¶49

Patna High Court CWJC No.20688 of 2018(2) dt.10-06-2019 5/5

¶50

demonstrate that there is any jurisdictional error on the part of the competent authority while passing the impugned order.

¶51

This writ application has thus no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶52

This, however, will not come in the way of the petitioners in pursuing their remedy of statutory appeal, if so advised. If such an appeal is preferred, all the questions shall remain open.

¶53

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶54

arvind/-

¶55

Mohan Sahni v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Sahni v. The State of Bihar

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

Simpi Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Prashant Bagla Vs The State of Bihar

Dinesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Saroj Kumari Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Niraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar