Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh and Kishore K.Mandal JJ. 1. The judgment under appeal governs a batch of 31 writ petitions, which have been allowed by the Honble Single Judge by issuing a direction restraining the State Government and all the officials and agencies acting under it from trying to forcibly eject the petitioners (appellants herein) from their respective premises or to act in a manner so as to disturb the possession of their respective premises till such time the petitioners are directed to be evicted from their respective premises in due course of law. 2. After issuing the aforesaid direction in paragraph-43 of the judgment, a material observation has been given in paragraph-44 in the following words: "In order to avoid any confusion on the issue, it is made expressly clear that this judgment or any observations or remarks made hereinabove are not intended to express any opinion on the merits of the parties claim and their respective rights in the disputed properties and it will be open to the State Government, if it is so advised, to seek the petitioners eviction following the due course of law." 3. It appears that the number of writ petitioners in this batch of cases is more than two hundred (200) and they have their shops and business premises in a locality of Patna Town known as New Market Area situated North West of the Patna Railway Station. The writ petitioners sought direction against threatened demolition of Pucca buildings and the structures from where they are operating their shops and businesses. 4. After hearing the parties and perusing the judgment under appeal, it is clear that rights of the parties have not been decided by the judgment under appeal except holding that the State of Bihar or its agencies, which are appellants in these appeals, cannot exercise their executive power to forcibly evict the writ petitioners and other similarly situated persons, many of whom have entered caveat as intervenors in the writ petitions, or to demolish their shops and business premises by force without resorting to due course of law. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General-Ill, Mr. Lalit Kishore has very fairly submitted that there can be no dispute with the proposition that even the State or its officials, in exercise of their rights as superior landlord or lessor, cannot take possession of the disputed buildings and structures by using force under executive decisions. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General-Ill, Mr. Lalit Kishore has very fairly submitted that there can be no dispute with the proposition that even the State or its officials, in exercise of their rights as superior landlord or lessor, cannot take possession of the disputed buildings and structures by using force under executive decisions. However, he asserts that there are statutes which empower the State and its agencies to adopt summary procedures and remove encroachment from public land in exercise of rights flowing from statutory provisions. According to him, it needs to be clarified that in the light of the observations given by the Honble Single Judge in paragraph-44 of the judgment under appeal, the State, in any appropriate case, may take recourse to such statutory provisions. 6. After going through the judgment under appeal and the observations, we are of the view that due precaution has been taken by Honble Single Judge in making the required observation that the State Government, if it is so advised, can seek petitioners eviction following the due course of law. Such course of action is open to the State Government not only in respect of the writ petitioners but in respect of all similarly situated persons after application of mind to relevant facts. 7. Since no point has been raised on behalf of the petitioners/appellants, which requires adjudication to affect the correctness and legality of the judgment under appeal, we find no good reason to interfere with the same. 8. All these appeals are, therefore, dismissed. If the cost awarded by the Honble Single Judge has not been deposited as yet, it should be deposited within a further period of one month. There shall be no order as to cost in these appeals.