Petitioner filed writ alleging encroachment. Court found disputed question of facts suitable for civil court; writ not pressed. Court dismissed writ with liberty for civil suit and granted status quo for four weeks.
Writ petition disposed as not pressed; liberty to approach civil court; status quo maintained for four weeks.
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.7795 of 2018
======================================================
Mahant Sahdev Das @ Sahdev Jamader S/o late Mahavir Das, R/o Township Rajgir, P.S. Rajgir, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binit Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan- SC 25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER
4 12-09-2022
Though, the present writ petition was filed alleging therein that the private raiyati land of the petitioner is being encroached by the Respondent State, however, the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that an order u/s 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 was passed against the petitioner declaring him to be an encroacher over the land in question, whereupon he had filed an appeal, however, the same has also stood dismissed.
In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7795 of 2018(4) dt.12-09-2022 2/2
petitioner, realizing the fact that the present case involves disputed question of facts, which can only be decided by a competent civil court having appropriate jurisdiction, seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to approach the competent civil court having appropriate jurisdiction, nonetheless, he submits that some protection be granted to the petitioner, during the interregnum period.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off as not pressed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are available under the law including that of filing appropriate suit before the learned civil court having competent jurisdiction. It is needless to state that for a period of four weeks from today, status quo existing as on today shall be maintained qua the plot/ land of the petitioner in question, in order to enable the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Tiwary/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner shall be permitted to maintain status quo during the interregnum period given that the writ petition is not pressed due to a disputed question of facts reserved for the civ
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahant Sahdev Das
The State Of Bihar
Mohit Kumar Shah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
