Disposed¶26

Suresh Kumar Motani v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC15 May 2025CWJC/22186/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suresh Kumar Motani v. State of Bihar & others, CWJC No.22186 of 2014, Patna High Court, decided 15-05-2025 by Alok Kumar Sinha, J. Keywords: BIADA boundary wall; closure of 'Rasta'/'Aam Rasta'; ingress and egress; Bela Road Industrial Area, Muzaffarpur; Land Acquisition Case No.1/1978-79; 173.88 acres; writ of mandamus; detail objection before District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur; one month to file, three months to dispose; petitioner relied on order dated 29.09.2011 in CWJC No.4557 of 2008 (Annexure-D); writ application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of with the observation that BIADA should not construct beyond the acquired 173.88 acres; liberty to the petitioner to file a detail objection before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur within one month, to be disposed of within three months of filing.

Suresh Kumar Motani Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding the respondents not to close the 'Rasta' by constructing a boundary wall, and whether the portion of the boundary wall allegedly built over land used as 'Aam Rasta' by the local public should be demolished. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

BIADA should not exceed its construction beyond the area which was acquired by it, i.e., 173.88 acres of land.

¶23

Key takeaways

If the petitioner feels that BIADA is encroaching on land outside the 173.88 acres, the petitioner will have the right to file a detail objection before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.ratio¶23
The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur shall dispose of the objection/representation within three months from the date of its filing by the petitioners.ratio¶25
The petitioner may file his objection before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur within one month from the date of the order, if he so desires.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Alok Kumar Sinha, J.), by oral order dated 15-05-2025, disposed of a Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case in which the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to close a 'Rasta' used by the local public for ingress and egress adjacent to Bela Road Industrial Area, Muzaffarpur, by constructing a boundary wall, and seeking demolition of the portion of the wall allegedly built over land used as 'Aam Rasta'. Noting that the Industries Department had acquired 173.88 acres under Land Acquisition Case No.1/1978-79 for setting up industries, the Court observed that BIADA should not exceed its construction beyond the acquired 173.88 acres; if the petitioner felt BIADA was encroaching on land outside that area, he could file a detail objection before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur within one month, to be disposed of within three months of filing.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22186 of 2014

¶2

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

¶3

Suresh Kumar Motani son of Nandlal Motani resident of mohalla - Durgasthan Gola Road, P.S. - Town, District - Muzaffarpur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar.

¶7

Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna.

¶9

The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Regional Office Muzaffarpur.

¶10

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muzaffarpur.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate Smt. Bela Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghwanand, GA-12 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, AC to GA-11 For BIADA : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 15-05-2025

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for BIADA and learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶18

The petitioner has come before this Court seeking writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents not to close the ‘Rasta’ by constructing boundary wall, which as per the petitioner is being used by the local public for very long and it is the only way of ingress and egress of the area i.e. adjacent area of Bela Road Industrial Area, Muzaffarpur and further the petitioner has prayed for appropriate order to be passed for demolishing a portion of the boundary wall which has been

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.22186 of 2014(3) dt.15-05-2025 2/3

¶20

allegedly constructed over the land which is being used as ‘Aam Rasta’ by local public.

¶21

For buttressing his case the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by this Court on 29.09.2011 in CWJC No.4557 of 2008 (Annexure-D).

¶22

It is not in dispute that the Industries Department has acquired piece of land for setting up industries in Bela Industrial Area under Land Acquisition Case No.1/1978-79 measuring 173.88 acres. The case of the BIADA is that 173.88 acres have been acquired for industrial purposes and since the lands were open lands, the residents of the area was utilizing the land as road. It is further submitted that they have a passage/road for ingress and egress and as such their claim that the BIADA has constructed a boundary wall and is intending to close the ‘Rasta’ is misconceived and not correct.

¶23

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the view that BIADA should not exceed its construction beyond the area which was acquired by them i.e. 173.88 acres of land. If the petitioner feels that BIADA is encroaching on other land which is outside the area of 173.88 acres of land then they will have a right to file a detail objection before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur who shall dispose of

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.22186 of 2014(3) dt.15-05-2025 3/3

¶25

the objection/representation within three months from the date of its filing by the petitioners. The petitioner may file their objection before the District Magistrate, Muzaffapur within one month from today, if he so desires.

¶26

The writ application is disposed of with the

¶27

aforesaid observation.

¶28

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶29

Prakash Narayan U

Suresh Kumar Motani v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Motani v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Pal @ Rajendra Pal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jai Prakash Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Satyendra Prasad Roy Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Govind Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Chandra Bhushan Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.