Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1012 (PAT)

Laxmi Nivas Poddar v. State Of Bihar

2001-11-06

R.S.GARG

body2001
Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the parties are finally heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and property of the order dated 3-7-1996 passed in Encroachment Case No. 5193 of 1994 by Anchal Adhikari (Annexure-9) and Order dated 10-9-1998 passed in Land Encroachment Appeal No. 4 of 1996-97 by the Collector/District Magistrate, Patna (Annexure-10). 3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are two-folds, firstly that the recommendations were made by the Anchal Adhikari on 3-7-1996 to the Collector for making a direction that the land in dispute which appears to be under the encroachment of the petitioner may be settled in the name of the petitioner in terms of the Industrial Policy and on the same day the said Anchal Adhikari passed the order directing the eviction of the petitioner from the said land, and, secondly that the Collector/District Magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts of the case nor took into consideration the recommendations made by the Anchal Adhikari. 4. On the other hand, contending contrary to the above submissions, learned Counsel for the State submits that the order passed by the two Authorities, as contained in Annexure-9 and 10, are just and valid and the land in dispute cannot be settled in the name of the petitioner as it is on the flanks of the canal. He further submits that in accordance with the Industrial policy certain lands should be allotted but such allotment of lands would otherwise affect the safety of the canal or would create public nuisance. According to him, the orders impugned are absolutely justified and the recommendations made by the Anchal Adhikari would have no binding effect after the orders for removal of the encroachment which already have been passed. 5. I have heard the parties. 6. Undisputedly, in accordance with the Industrial policy, certain lands, which are under the encroachment, may be settled by the State Government in favour of the industrials provided such settlement does not affect even the public tempo nor creates any public nuisance or affects the public property which is of the prime consideration. 5. I have heard the parties. 6. Undisputedly, in accordance with the Industrial policy, certain lands, which are under the encroachment, may be settled by the State Government in favour of the industrials provided such settlement does not affect even the public tempo nor creates any public nuisance or affects the public property which is of the prime consideration. In the present case, the petitioner says and submits that the land under encroachment is at a long distance from canals therefore, it may be settled in his name under the Industrial Policy, but at the same time learned Counsel for the State submits that the land in disputes is contiguous to the canal, therefore, the same cannot be allotted to or settled in the name of the petitioner. It would be noteworthy that the question of allotment of the land or settlement of the land is to be considered and decided by the Collector/District Magistrate not by this Court. In accordance with the Industrial Policy, the land may be settled out, at the same time, the public interest or safety of the public property cannot be sacrificed would be a question for consideration by the Collector/District Magistrate. 7. Along with a copy of this order petitioner shall appear before the District Magistrate on 26tg November, 2001. If required, he may even make a fresh application to the Collector for allotment/settlement of the land in his name. After such an application along with a copy of this order is filed or the petitioner makes a request to the Collector for taking up his earlier representation then after hearing both the parties, the Collector shall pass final order on the application of the petitioner already filed or which may be filed. It is, however, made clear that it would be within the sole jurisdiction and discretion of the Collector to allot and not allot the land in favour of the petitioner taking into consideration the Industrial Policy, safety of the canal, the effect and impact of the allotment and things akin to it. The Collector shall pass final order within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this order. 8. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.