Dismissed¶33

Upendra Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 May 2024CWJC/8148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment of public land and public well; maintainability of public interest litigation; effective efficacious alternative remedy; Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956; Code of Criminal Procedure 1908; writ of mandamus; Article 226; drinking water; Jal Jivan Hariyali scheme; Government land Khata No. 587 Khesra No. 1868 Mauza 998 Mohiuddin; Nayanagar Panchayat; Rosara; Samastipur; religious disharmony; dismissal with liberty to approach competent authority.

What did the court decide?

The grievance being one of encroachment of public land and a well, the petitioner has an effective, efficacious alternative remedy under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. ¶29

Upendra Paswan 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 writ petition, styled as a public interest litigation under Article 226 seeking mandamus for removal of encroachment over Government land and a public well, is maintainable, given the alternative remedy available under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The grievance being one of encroachment of public land and a well, the petitioner has an effective, efficacious alternative remedy under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Where encroachment on public land is of such a nature that the Collector considers its immediate removal essential for the safety of the general public or of any other structure on the public land, the right and remedy is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1908 as also under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

¶30

Key takeaways

Exercising its equitable jurisdiction, the Court found the present writ petition, under the guise of public interest litigation, not maintainable.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (CWJC No.8148 of 2024, decided 17-05-2024; oral judgment per Harish Kumar, J; Coram: K. Vinod Chandran, CJ and Harish Kumar, J) dismissed a petition under Article 226 styled as a public interest litigation by Upendra Paswan seeking a writ of mandamus to remove encroachments, including over a public well measuring 3 decimal, on Government land (Mauza 998 Mohiuddin, Khata No. 587, Khesra No. 1868, Anchal-Hasanpura, District Samastipur) allegedly effected by private respondent nos. 6 to 10, and to provide drinking water and implement the Jal Jivan Hariyali scheme. The Court held, prima facie, that the petitioner had an effective, efficacious alternative remedy under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956; further, where immediate removal of encroachment is essential for public safety, remedy also lies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1908. Exercising equitable jurisdiction, the Court found the writ petition under the guise of PIL not maintainable and dismissed it, reserving liberty to approach the competent authority or the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8148 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Upendra Paswan Son of Ramji Paswan Resident of Ward No. 11, Mohiuddinpur, P.S.- Rosara, District- Samastipur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffapur.

¶9

The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

¶10

The Circle Officer, Rosara, District-Samastipur.

¶11

Mohammad Samad, Son of Md. Allamuddin, Resident of Ward No. 13, P.S. Rosara, District- Samastipur, Bihar.

¶12

Mohammad Shahanwaj, son of Md. Mokim Resident of Ward No. 11, P.S. Rosara, District- Samastipur, Bihar.

¶13

Mohammad Mahbub, Son of Maniruddin, Resident of Ward No. 13, P.S. Rosara, District- Samastipur, Bihar.

¶14

Mohammad Khusnuz, Son of Md. Syed, Resident of Ward No. 12, P.S. Rosara, District- Samastipur, Bihar.

¶15

Mohammad Akhtar, Son of Md. Jamir, Resident of Ward No. 12, P.S. Rosara, District- Samastipur, Bihar.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)

¶18

Date : 17-05-2024

¶19

Heard the parties.

¶20

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this

¶21

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.8148 of 2024 dt.17-05-2024 2/4

¶23

writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to remove the encroachments including the encroachment over the well measuring an area of 3 decimal located in Ward No. 11, Mohiuddin village in Nayanagar Panchayat.

¶24

It is contended that the aforesaid encroachment has been effected by the private respondent nos. 6 to 10. Direction has also been sought for making the respondent authorities to provide drinking water to the residents of Mohiuddin village and to implement the Government scheme of Jal Jivan Hariyali .

¶25

The Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner referring to the averments made in the writ petition contended that the record of the Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar clearly shows that the land in question located at Mauza 998 Mohiuddin, Khata No. 587, Khesra No. 1868, Anchal-Hasanpura, District Samastipur, appertaining to 3 decimal is a Government land. There is a public well located therein which has been forcibly encroached by the private respondents.

¶26

On account of the encroachment, there is religious disharmony between the two communities. A Committee

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.8148 of 2024 dt.17-05-2024 3/4

¶28

consisting of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rosera, Circle Officer, Hasanpura, local Mukhiya and other public representatives have also tried to resolve the dispute to refrain the encroachers from making any encroachment over the land, however, the private respondents are bent upon encroaching the land, in question, including the well.

¶29

Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the materials available on record, prima facie , the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to encroachment of public land and well and, as such, the petitioner has effective, efficacious alternative remedy under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

¶30

It is worthy to note that where the encroachment on public land is of such a nature and the Collector considers its immediate removal essential for the safety of general public or for the safety of any other structure on the public land, the right and remedy is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1908; as also under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

¶31

Exercising the equitable jurisdiction, this Court does not find the present writ petition, under the guise of public interest litigation, to be maintainable; accordingly, the same

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.8148 of 2024 dt.17-05-2024 4/4

¶33

stands dismissed, reserving the liberty to approach before the competent authority or the Court of competent jurisdiction, as the case may be.

¶34

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶35

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶36

shivank/-

¶37