Disposed

Md. Abdul Rahim v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Apr 2023CWJC/1585/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an eviction notice under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, the respondent-state submitted that the encroachment had been removed from the disputed land. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition as the petitioner did not press the grievance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed off as not pressed by the petitioner in light of the removal of encroachment. No golconda.

Md. Abdul Rahim Vs The State of Bihar — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1585 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Md. Abdul Rahim Son of Late Md. Amanat, resident of ward No. 4, village - Belhi Paschmi, Near Masjid, P.S. and Anchal - Jainagar, Distt. - Madhubani (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Collector, Madhubani.

¶7

The Collector of the District (DM), Madhubani.

¶8

The Sub-divisional Officer, Jainagar, Madhubani.

¶9

The Circle Officer (C.O.) Jainagar, Madhubani.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Nath Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan ( Sc 25 )

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER

¶15

3 18-04-2023

¶16

The learned counsel for the Respondent-State seeks to

¶17

file a counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶19

“1(i). Quashing / setting aside the impugned notice / order dt. 24.12.2022 (Annex-9) passed by Respondent No. 4 U/S 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in Land Encroachment case No. 04 of 2022-23 (State Vs. Md. Abdul Rahim) whereby and whereunder he has directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment from his Land till 11.01.2023.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.1585 of 2023(3) dt.18-04-2023 2/3

¶21

(ii) Directing the respondent-authorities to drop the said Encroachment proceeding No. 04 of 2022-23 (State Vs. Md. Abdul Rahim) which has illegally been initiated against the raiyati and khatiyani lands of the petitioner and not to demolish the residential premises of the petitioner standing on the said lands.

¶22

(iii) Holding and declaring that the land in question is not a public land, but out and out, as per khatiyan a raiyati & personal land of the petitioner and there is no encroachment at all on the said land by the petitioner.

¶23

(iv) Holding and declaring that without hearing/deciding the objection of the petitioner (Annx-7) the Learned Respondent no.4 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as contained in Annx-9 hereto for eviction of the petitioner.

¶24

(v) Restraining the respondents authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question till pendency of this writ application before this Hon’ble Court.”

¶25

At the outset, the learned counsel for the RespondentState has submitted, by referring to paragraph no. 14 of the counter affidavit, filed in the present case that though the encroachment proceeding was initiated for the entire area, appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 2400, comprising of 0.60 acre land

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.1585 of 2023(3) dt.18-04-2023 3/3

¶27

and R.S. Plot No. 2457, comprising of 4.34 acre land, however, after receiving information regarding correction having been made in the R.S. entry with respect to an area of 46 decimal, appertaining to Plot No. 2457 in favour of the petitioner, encroachment has been removed from the rest of the land in question, leaving 46 decimal land, which is recorded in the name of the petitioner and the Respondents do not propose to disturb the possession of the petitioner from the said 46 decimal area of land.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is not having any subsisting grievance, hence, the present writ petition may be disposed off.

¶29

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off as not pressed.

¶30

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶31

Ajay/- U

Md. Abdul Rahim v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abdul Rahim v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bihar State Housing Board Through Its Managing Director and Ors. Vs The State Information Commission Through Its Secretary and Anr.

Vinod Chandra Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mostt. Safiya Khatoon Vs The Bihar State Housing Board Through Its Managing Director and Ors.

Parmila Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mahesh Sahani and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Mahto @ Surendra Prasad Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.