Hari Shankar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwa Nath Chaudhary, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.C.Yadav-GP15 Md. Faiz Ahmed, AC to GP14 ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶17

3 24-07-2026

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well

¶19

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

The matter has come before this Court upon the mention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on account of the urgency and a short prayer for disposal of encroachment case pending before the concerned authorities. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for seeking directions to the Additional Collector, Rohtas i.e., Respondent no. 5 to remove the encroachment from Pokhra situated in Mouza, Deokhaira which is recorded in Revision Survey Khatiyan as Anabad Sarbsha Dharan appertaining to Khata No. 153, Plot No. 781 an Area 1.59 acres

¶21

in pursuance of the order contained in Memo No. 398 dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. Further direction has been sought from the Additional Collector, Rohtas to remove the structure or building from Pokhra within one month as on account of this encroachment there has water logging in the village and it is creating obstructions.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that Encroachment Case No. 26/2016-17 which has been initiated almost eight years ago have not attained finality and therefore, the prayer has been made for disposal of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Ram Punit Choudhary vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2023 (6) BLJ 395, the relevant extract of paragraph-6 of the same is quoted hereinbelow :-

¶23

“6. Having perused the material on record, the affidavits filed and the progress in removal of the encroachment as is evident from the affidavits filed by the District Magistrates, in the opinion of this Court, considerable steps have been taken and efforts made in removal of the encroachment. This Court hopes and expects that steps taken by the authorities will be taken to its logical conclusion and thus the instant application is being disposed of with the following directions:-

¶24

(I) The Circle Officers will prepare a chart every three months in the format prescribed by this Court in this case giving the total number of water bodies and the total number of water bodies from which encroachments are required to be removed and shall submit the same to their respective District Magistrates on 1^st of January, 1^st of April, 1^st of July and 1^st of October respectively.

¶25

(ii) The District Magistrate shall personally look into and monitor the matter and take all possible steps in accordance with law for removal of the encroachments from the water bodies.

¶26

(iii) The Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the respective districts shall provide adequate police force as and when requisitioned by the authorities/Circle Officers for the above purpose.

¶27

(iv) It shall be the duty of the Circle Officers to keep a watch that none of the water bodies are once again encroached upon”.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and fairly submits that the proceedings should be culminated.

¶29

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and also the judgment, which has been relied

¶30

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Punit Choudhary (supra), the present application is being disposed of with a direction to the Circle Officer, Anchal Kargahar, District-Rohtas (respondent no. 6) to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months after hearing all the necessary parties.

¶31

It is made clear that if the aforesaid encroachment proceedings have come to close, then the grievance of the petitioner shall be considered/examined afresh and only if it is found that encroachment around Pokhra exists and there are complete violation of the directions given in the judgment of this Hon’ble Court as mentioned in the case of Ram Punit Choudhary (supra), Respondent No. 5 may proceed in accordance with law by initiating fresh encroachment proceedings under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 for ends of justice.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed in view of aforesaid observations.

¶33

(Raj Kumar, J)

¶34

prachi/- U T

Hari Shankar Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shankar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bablu Sonkar Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sharwan Das Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar @ Indrajit Kumar @ Indrajit Vs The State of Bihar

Reza Ahmad @ Kittu @ Sanjar Ali Vs The State of Bihar

Mundrika Singh @ Mundrika Singh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.