Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1905 (PAT)

Ranjan Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar

2011-09-07

JYOTI SARAN

body2011
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition was filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities of the Motihari Zila Parishad to accord permission to the petitioners for construction of shop at their own cost. A further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the said shops. 3. The case of the petitioners is that following an anti encroachment drive, they were displaced. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, considering their grievance constituted a Committee with the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar as its Chairman. A scheme was formulated for settlement of such persons by allotment of space for construction of shop at own cost/readymade shops. Following the said decision, the petitioners were allowed settlement over the area in question and which was to be developed by the petitioners on their own cost. It is further the case of the petitioners that accordingly the respondent no.3 the Circle Officer, Motihari Sadar, entered into an agreement with the petitioners allowing them to construct their shops by executing certain agreements. 4. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, East Champaran, vide letter dated 7.7.1999 issued direction to the Circle Officer to cancel the agreement and which led to filing of a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No.7346 of 1999. A bench of this court by order dated 11.2.2000, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the claim, while disposing of the writ petition was pleased to remit the matter to the Special Officer of the Motihari Municipality to pass a fresh order after considering the representation and the documents filed in support thereof by the petitioners. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioners filed an application before the Special Officer of the Motihari Municipality on 30.3.2000 which was disposed of by order dated 9.6.2000 as contained in memo no.282 dated 12.6.2000 of the Special officer, Motihari Municipality, recommending the case of the petitioners for settlement with further request to the authorities of the district administration not to disturb the petitioners from their peaceful possession. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that despite the aforesaid position, the authorities of the district administration, has proceeded to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the shop in question and have initiated a proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that despite the aforesaid position, the authorities of the district administration, has proceeded to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the shop in question and have initiated a proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The initiation of the proceedings under the Act led to filing of an interlocutory application in the present proceedings praying for an order restraining the respondent authorities from proceeding in any manner under the Act. 6. While the matter was pending before this court, the proceeding initiated by the Circle Officer under the provisions of the Act had since reached final conclusion and the order has been passed by the Circle Officer in purported exercise of the powers vested in him under section 6 of the Act directing the petitioners to remove their encroachments from the plots in question. The said order dated 10.4.2010 has been brought on record by way of Annexure-7 to the interlocutory application. 7. As the legality and the validity of the encroachment proceeding is not the subject matter of the present case, this court would not express any opinion on the merits of the case or as regarding the legality and validity of the order passed by the Circle Officer in purported exercise of the powers under the Act. The petitioners, if so advised, may prefer an appropriate remedy before an appropriate forum by filing an appropriate application. 8. Considering the developments aforesaid and in view of the order passed by the Circle Officer under the Act, there is no circumstances available at present, to grant indulgence to the prayer made by the petitioners and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. Before parting, it would be necessary to add that if such application is filed by the petitioners challenging the legality of the order passed by the Circle Officer under the Act together with an application for condonation of delay, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the authority concerned in accordance with law, considering the pendency of the present proceedings.