Dismissed¶33

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Bhagat v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Feb 2024CWJC/3423/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC No.3423 of 2024; Patna High Court; writ petition dismissed; PIL; Article 226; extraordinary jurisdiction; public interest litigation; gairmajarua aam; dagar road; Mauza-Simrahi; Khata No. 170; Plot No. 1050; Supaul; Raghopur; Birpur; encroachment removal sought and refused; Panchayat Bhawan on public land; construction/removal within exclusive domain of Panchayat and State Government; alternative remedy available under the law; dilapidated structure obstruction; no public interest shown; K. Vinod Chandran, CJ; Harish Kumar, J; decision date 23-02-2024.

What did the court decide?

The Panchayat Bhawan is constructed over a public land, and its construction or removal is within the exclusive domain of the Panchayat and the State Government. ¶28

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should, in a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226, direct the respondents to measure and demarcate the gairmajarua aam road (dagar) land at Mauza-Simrahi, Khata No. 170, Plot No. 1050 and remove the alleged encroachment by the so-called Panchayat Bhawan.

¶26

Court's answer

The Panchayat Bhawan is constructed over a public land, and its construction or removal is within the exclusive domain of the Panchayat and the State Government.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has other remedy available under the law if a structure/building is dilapidated or constructed on government land/rasta and causes obstruction to the smooth passage of the public and vehicles.

¶28

Key takeaways

There is no reason or occasion to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court on the claimed public interest, which does not exist in this case.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution (Patna High Court, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3423 of 2024, decided 23-02-2024) by a social activist seeking a direction to the respondents to measure and demarcate gairmajarua aam road (dagar) land at Mauza-Simrahi, Khata No. 170, Plot No. 1050, District Supaul, and to remove the alleged encroachment in the form of a so-called Panchayat Bhawan, said to be constructed without legal authority, abandoned and obstructing ingress and egress of residents. Held: the Panchayat Bhawan is constructed over a public land and its construction or removal lies within the exclusive domain of the Panchayat and the State Government; the petitioner has other remedy available under the law where a structure/building is dilapidated or built on government land/rasta obstructing smooth passage; and there is no reason or occasion to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction on claims of public interest which is not existing. The application, sans merit, was dismissed. Oral judgment per Harish Kumar, J; Coram: K. Vinod Chandran, CJ and Harish Kumar, J.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3423 of 2024

¶3

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

¶4

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Bhagat Son of Prakash Bhagat Resident of Vilalge-Simrahi, P.S.-raghopur, District-Supaul.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Supaul.

¶10

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Birpur, Supaul.

¶11

The Executive Officer, nagar Panchayat, Simrahi, Supaul.

¶12

¶13

The Circle Officer, Raghopur, Supaul.

¶14

The Station Head Officer, Raghopur Police Station, Supaul.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance :

¶18

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nagendar Prasad Yadav For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate General

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR) Date : 23-02-2024

¶22

Heard the parties.

¶23

The petitioner claiming to be a social activist has

¶24

filed the present Public Interest Litigation by invoking the

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.3423 of 2024 dt.23-02-2024 2/3

¶26

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction upon the respondents to measure and demarcate the gairmajarua aam road ( dagar ) land situated at Mauza-Simrahi, Khata No. 170, Plot No. 1050 and remove the encroachment made by the anti socials in the name of Panchayat Bhawan for illegal activities allegedly going on within the so called Panchayat Bhawan.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the so called Panchayat Bhawan is constructed without any legal and valid authority on a gairmajarua aam road ( dagar ) land and now the same is kept abandoned in a dilapidated condition without there being any utility, causing persistent obstruction in the ingress and egress of the residents living around it. In such circumstances, the petitioner prays for removal of the Panchayat Bhawan.

¶28

Having heard the parties we take note of the fact that the Panchayat Bhawan is constructed over a public land and its construction or removal is within the exclusive domain of the Panchayat and the State Government. Moreover, the petitioner has other remedy available under the law, if any structure/building is in a dilapidated condition or constructed on a government land/ rasta causes any obstruction in the smooth

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.3423 of 2024 dt.23-02-2024 3/3

¶30

passage of the public and vehicles.

¶31

This Court does not find any reason or occasion to

¶32

invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction on claims of public interest, which is not existing herein.

¶33

In view thereof, the present application sans any

¶34

merit, stands dismissed.

¶35

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶36

( Harish Kumar, J)

¶37

Anjani/-

¶38

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 27.02.2024 Transmission Date

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Bhagat v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Bhagat v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Aryabhat Computers Vs The State of Bihar

Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Tribhuwan Prasad Singh and Company, Vs The State of Bihar

Lawnish Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mantu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amvika Prasad Vs Bihar State Religious Trust Board