JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the reliefs, delineated in paragraph-1 of the petition and are reproduced hereinbelow:- (i) To issue an appropriate writ/ order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reconstruct the shop of the petitioner at the place where it was situated before demolition and to restore its possession to the petitioner immediately. (ii) To issue appropriate writ/order/ direction declaring the act of the respondents as far as demolition of shop of the petitioner is concerned as unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. (iii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was settled a shop* on lease basis in the year 1974 over a Government Sairat land bearing Khata No. 299, Khesra No. 370, area 43 Sq.ft situate at Dainik Bazar, Ramnagar in the district of West Champaran and he claims to be coming in possession over the said shop. By referring to Annexure-5, an order passed in Case No. 8 of 2001-2002 by the respondent-Anchal Adhikari, Ramnagar, it has been submitted that on 26.6.2001 an order was passed to settle the shop with new condition on lease basis and agreement was directed to be prepared and signed by the parties. According to the petitioner, while he was having a right and title over the shop in question on the basis of the lease agreement, suddenly, on 27.11.2003 respondent-Block Development Officer alongwith the police personnel came over there and demolished the shop in question in purported compliance of the general order/direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990* (Arun Kumar Mukherjee V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.). It is also submitted that since no notice was given to the petitioner before demolishing the shop in question, he is entitled to get the relief sought for in paragraph-1 of the writ petition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel No. 3 appearing on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. It is also submitted that since no notice was given to the petitioner before demolishing the shop in question, he is entitled to get the relief sought for in paragraph-1 of the writ petition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel No. 3 appearing on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, in compliance of the general order/direction of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Mukherjee (supra) the authorities were obliged to remove/demolish the encroachment made by individuals on the Government land. In his submission, the lands in question being the Government land and there being a specific direction by a Division Bench of this Court, the authorities had no option but to carry out the direction issued by this Court. It is further highlighted that no lease agreement was ever entered into between the petitioner at one side and the Government officials at the other side and the petitioner has failed to produce any such lease agreement for consideration by this Court and, therefore, no relief can be granted to him in the present proceeding. However, if the petitioner is at all aggrieved, he can file a suit in the civil court of competent jurisdiction. 5. After having heard the parties at length and after having considered the submissions and materials produced before this Court, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to produce any lease agreement either executed in the year 1974 or in the year 2001, in pursuance to order as contained in Annexure-5 of the writ petition. For producing copy of the lease agreement the matter was adjourned and an opportunity was given to the petitioner, but despite the adjournment and opportunity, the copy of lease agreement has not been produced by the petitioner. In absence of any lease agreement, this Court is not in a position to come to a specific finding as to whether the petitioner was having any legal right over the shop in question. From the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. In absence of any lease agreement, this Court is not in a position to come to a specific finding as to whether the petitioner was having any legal right over the shop in question. From the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 7, it further appears that a Title Suit No. 47 of 2001 has been filed in the Court of learned Sub-Judge-I, Civil Court, Bagaha (West Champaran) by some other shopkeepers, whose shops were also allegedly demolished/removed in compliance of the general order/direction issued by this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Mukherjee (supra). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 1996(2) P.L.J.R. 621 . In the aforesaid case lease agreement was there in favour of the petitioner Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and in that background, the judgment was delivered by a learned Single Judge. The facts involved in the aforesaid case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and that in the present case are entirely different and, therefore, ratio laid down in that case cannot be applied in the present case. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for the appropriate relief by filing a civil suit.