Dismissed¶32

Shakteshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Jan 2025CWJC/8936/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; disputed question of fact not adjudicable in writ jurisdiction; alleged exchange of land between Plot No. 954 and public road Plot No. 1033, Mouza Haveh, Darbhanga; demolition of boundary wall after 2nd July 2020 public announcement; State denial — demolition attributed to local public; no documents of exchange; no demolition case number produced; Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956; remit to Civil Court for encroachment, demolition and demarcation; State of M.P. v. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co. (1997) 1 SCC 156 relied on; mandamus and compensation refused; Bibek Chaudhuri, J.; decided 17-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners did not produce any documents in support of the alleged exchange of land in respect of Plot Nos. 954 and 1033. ¶31

Shakteshwar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether there was any exchange of land between Plot Nos. 954 and 1033. +2 more

¶31

Court's answer

The petitioners did not produce any documents in support of the alleged exchange of land in respect of Plot Nos. 954 and 1033.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

In course of argument, the learned Advocate for the petitioners failed to produce any demolition case number in support of the contention that the structure was demolished by the State respondents.

¶31

Key takeaways

The issue relates to a disputed question of fact which the writ court cannot adjudicate.ratio¶31
The dispute in hand is absolutely civil in nature and the Civil Court can decide the issue relating to illegal encroachment, demolition and demarcation of land.ratio¶32
Since the issue cannot be decided in the instant proceeding, the writ petition is dismissed on contest.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.), CWJC No. 8936 of 2020, decided 17-01-2025: Petitioners claiming ownership of Khata No. 352, Plot Nos. 953-955, 957-958 in Mouza Haveh, Darbhanga, alleged they had exchanged part of Plot No. 954 with a portion of public road in Plot No. 1033, and that after a public announcement on 2nd July 2020 a portion of their boundary wall was demolished by respondent authorities without notice; they sought mandamus restraining coercive encroachment-removal steps otherwise than under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and compensation for the demolition. The State countered that Plot No. 1033 is a public road and the unauthorized structure was demolished by local public, not the administration. The Court found the root issue was whether any exchange of land between Plot Nos. 954 and 1033 existed; the petitioners produced no documents of exchange and counsel produced no demolition case number. Holding the matter to involve a disputed question of fact unfit for writ adjudication, and absolutely civil in nature (illegal encroachment, demolition, demarcation) to be decided by the Civil Court, relying on State of M.P. & Ors. v. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co., (1997) 1 SCC 156, the Court dismissed the writ petition on contest.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8936 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Shakteshwar Prasad, Son of Late Vishnu Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Gangasagar Rudalganj, P.O.-Lalbagh, P.S.-Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga

¶4

Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Tarkeshwar Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Gangasagar Rudalganj, P.O.-Lalbagh, P.S.-Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga

¶5

Sandeep Kumar Son of Late Kapileshwar Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Gangasagar Rudalganj, P.O.-Lalbagh, P.S.-Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms (Revenue) Department Government of Bihar, Patna

¶9

The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

¶10

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga.

¶11

The Circle Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr. Prasad, GP 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶14

6 17-01-2025 The petitioners have approached civil writ

¶15

jurisdiction seeking following reliefs:

¶16

“(I) A Writ of mandamus may kindly be issue restraining the Respondent Authorities from acting illegally and arbitrarily by taken any Coercive step in the garb of removal of encroachment from the plots of Plot No. 1033 without taking steps strictly in accordance with law as envisaged under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

¶17

(ii) A further Writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the Respondent

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.8936 of 2020(6) dt.17-01-2025

¶19

2/4

¶20

Authorities not take any Co-ercive steps in respect of the lands in dispute during the pendency of this Writ Application.

¶21

(iii) A further Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to pay adequate monetary compensation if it be found that the constructions made upon the lands of the petitioners have illegally and un authorities demolished earlier prior to or after the filing of this Writ Application.

¶22

(iv) Issue any other appropriate Writ order or direction to which the petitioner may be found entitled.”

¶23

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the

¶24

owners of the Khata No. 352, Plot No. 953, 954 and 955 along with other land bearing plot no. 957 and 958 of Mouza - Haveh, Darbhanga Kheraj Jalkar Bankar. The ancestors of the petitioners were the intermediary landlords of the said land. The said intermediaries had settled a portion of the said plot to different raiyats and used to collect rent from them. The said under raiyats became direct raiyats under the State after vesting of land. Further, case of the petitioners is that the petitioners exchanged part of Plot No. 954 with a portion of public road situated in Plot No. 1033 and the said part of public road in Plot No. 1033 was within their raiyati land that on 2^nd July 2020 there was a public announcement that encroachments in Plot

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.8936 of 2020(6) dt.17-01-2025 3/4

¶26

No. 1033 would be demolished and accordingly a portion of boundary wall of the petitioners was demolished by the respondent authorities.

¶27

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents had no right and authority to demolish the said portion of Plot No. 1033 as it was exchanged with a portion of Plot No. 954. The petitioners were not served with any notice before demolition and they are entitled to retain the said portion of Plot No. 1033. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus.

¶28

The State respondents have filed a counter-affidavit denying all allegations made out by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is specifically stated by the respondents that petitioners’ land was not encroached by the Government authorities, nor any portion of boundary wall was demolished as alleged. Plot No. 1033 is a public road and unauthorized structure on the public road was demolished by the local public and not by the administration.

¶29

The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, they have also filed some pictures showing demolition work by employing JCB.

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.8936 of 2020(6) dt.17-01-2025 4/4

¶31

In course of argument, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has failed to produce any demolition case number in support of his contention that it was demolished by the State respondents. The root issue involved in the dispute between the parties is as to whether there was any exchange of land between Plot Nos. 954 and 1033. The petitioners have not produced any documents in support of exchange of land in respect of Plot Nos. 954 and 1033. Moreover, the issue relates to a disputed question of fact which the writ court cannot adjudicate. In support of such contention, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. & Ors. v. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co., reported in (1997) 1 SCC 156 may be referred.

¶32

The dispute in hand is absolutely civil in nature and Civil Court can decide the issue relating to illegal encroachment, demolition and demarcation of land. This issue cannot be decided in the instant proceeding and accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed on contest.

¶33

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶34

Suraj Dubey/-

¶35

Shakteshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakteshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prerna Singh @ Prerna Dwivedi Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Prasad @ Birendra Mahto Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Govt. of Bihar

Kirti Gupta @ Anu Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal secretary, Deptt. of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

Jyoti Rani Vs The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Home Depot. Govt. of Bihar,Patna

Vikalp Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mr. Anand Kishore

Jaju Kumar Singhal Vs The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar