Disposed

Sadhana Sharma and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Apr 2023CWJC/2702/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench directed respondent authorities to help petitioners construct a boundary wall after confirming land demarcation. The writ petition, seeking removal of encroachment and direction against road construction, was disposed of without further orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to help construct boundary wall if any hindrance is caused. Writ petition disposed of.

Sadhana Sharma and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2702 of 2017

¶2

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

¶3

Sadhana Sharma wife of late Satyendra Nath Sharma

¶4

Prashanjeet Gaurav son of late Satyendra Nath Sharma Both residents of village - May, P.S. - Parwalpur, District - Nalanda.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Land Reforms Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hilsa, Nalanda. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda. 6. The Circle Officer, Parwalpur.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha- Sc19 Mr. Atul Shankar, AC to SC-19 ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 25-04-2023

¶14

At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent-

¶15

State seeks to file a counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶16

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

¶17

“1 That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ/s, order/s, direction/s commanding the respondents for direction to demarcate and remove encroachment over the land of the petitioners pertaining to Mauza May, Thana No.59, Khata No.295, Plot No 535,

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.2702 of 2017(3) dt.25-04-2023 2/3

¶19

area 80 decimal which has been encroached by the co-villagers of the petitioners. It is further direction upon the respondents for not taking any action for construction of concrete gali/road over the petitioners land and pass such order or direction in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent-State has filed a counter affidavit, duly sworn by the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, wherein it had been stated that the husband of the petitioner no.1 had filed a demarcation case, whereupon a case bearing Demarcation Case No.4 of 2006-07 was initiated, however, the application of mutation of land in question was rejected leading to filing of a writ petition bearing CWJC No.18219 of 2011, which was allowed vide order dated 12.12.2013, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein it has been held that in case settlement has been made on a Gair Majarua Aam land before vesting and it continues until the date of vesting of the land i.e. till the year 1956, it creates a legal right on the settlee. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State that subsequently, the husband of the writ petitioner had again filed an application for demarcation of the land in question in the year 2016 and then, the measurement was conducted, whereafter

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.2702 of 2017(3) dt.25-04-2023 3/3

¶22

the boundary of the land of the petitioners has been demarcated on 21.04.2023 and it has been found that the land in question belongs to the petitioners.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that though the petitioners are satisfied with the demarcation of their land, however, it is submitted that in case they construct boundary wall and any hindrance is caused, the respondentauthorities be directed to help the petitioners to construct the boundary wall. It is directed, accordingly.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed off.

¶25

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶26

kanchan/-

¶27

Sadhana Sharma and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhana Sharma and Anr. 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

Jay Kumar Jha Vs Nagar Parishad and Ors.

Sunder Sah @ Satya Narayan Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Babu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hari Narayan Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Yamuna Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Aftab Alam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.