Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1644 (PAT)

Birendra Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar

2012-12-06

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2012
ORDER There are 21 petitioners in the present writ application. They want quashing of the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna in Land Encroachment Case No.2 of 2005-06, as contained in Annexure-1 as well as the order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the Collector, Patna in Public Land Encroachment Appeal No.9 of 2006 as contained in Annexure-2. They also want quashing of the entire Public Land Encroachment Proceedings initiated against them as well as the direction not to dispossess them from the houses occupied by them. 2. A proceeding which was registered as Encroachment Case No.2 of 2005-06 was initiated in the court of the Circle Officer, Patna for eviction of the petitioners from what is known as Bihar Goshala Pinjarapole, Sadakat Ashram, Patna. The action was initiated to get rid of so-called encroachers occupying the land in question, which is the land under the control of an Executive Committee created under the Bihar Goshala Act, 1950. No doubt, this land was made over by a private individual with the object and purpose of setting up a Goshala but this was under the control of Bihar State Pinjarapole Goshala of Bihta though situated near Sadakat Ashram within the Patliputra Police Station, in the district of Patna. Over a period of time the Management and the affairs of the society withered away which gave advantage to certain set of people to derive illegal benefit or gain. The stand of the petitioners is that they are valid tenants who were inducted into the property by the erstwhile Secretary and they have been paying rent regularly but now for many years since there are no persons who are willing to collect the rent, it cannot be a ground for their eviction by taking recourse to public land encroachment provisions. A serious objection is also raised on behalf of the petitioners that it is not a public land at all and therefore it cannot come within the definition of public land and the proceeding initiated by the Circle Officer and any order passed by him and affirmed by the Collector is beyond jurisdiction. 3. From a diverse kind of materials which has been pressed into service, one thing is evident that the Rajendra Gokhul Goshala, Bihta is a registered Goshala under the Bihar Goshala Act. The Goshala owned and possessed 98 bighas of land. 3. From a diverse kind of materials which has been pressed into service, one thing is evident that the Rajendra Gokhul Goshala, Bihta is a registered Goshala under the Bihar Goshala Act. The Goshala owned and possessed 98 bighas of land. 88 bighas are located at Mouza Dilarpur at Bihta and the rest about 10 bighas and 2 kathas of land is situated at Mouza Hamidpur (Kurzi), P.S. Digha as at was known and now Sadakat Ashram, P.S. Patliputra. Though there used to be committee to run the affairs of the Goshala but the committee never came to be formed for many a years and adhocism had set in. During the course of inspection it was found that many illegality or irregularity was being committed and effort was on to barter away buildings and the land in one form or the other by certain vested interests, who claimed themselves to be the Incharge of the affairs of the Goshala. The Sadakat Ashram property is part and parcel of what is known as Rajendra Gokhul Goshala and does not have an independent identity. A committee came to be in place after an election was held under the supervision of SDO cum Election Officer on 14.9.2004 and they moved the district authorities for getting rid of encroachers who have been in unauthorized occupation over the buildings and the land of the Goshala, claiming themselves to be the tenants on some chits of papers which shows some payments many decades ago and whose authenticity not certified. 4. One aspect which is of significance is that a Title Suit No. 8 of 2006 has also been filed by some of the persons occupying the property. Learned Munsif –II, Patna while rejecting the injunction application has clearly and categorically held that the property in question is a public property and that it is a case prima facie of encroachment. The detailed order passed by the learned Munsif has been annexed in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. Learned Munsif –II, Patna while rejecting the injunction application has clearly and categorically held that the property in question is a public property and that it is a case prima facie of encroachment. The detailed order passed by the learned Munsif has been annexed in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. If this is the finding which has emerged in a judicial proceeding arising from the same bundle of facts with regard to the status of the property and land, then the serious resistance being put up by the petitioners that they cannot be evicted through a summary proceeding in terms of the decision of the Hon`ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bishan Das vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570 , may not have any applicability to the present set of facts. 6. The Court has gone through the Bihar Goshala Act, has perused section 13 and 14 which itself indicates the status of the Pinjarapole Goshala, which has no independent identification as such. All kinds of tricks is being practised to occupy the public property which was created by the statutory provision for public purpose but due to mis-management and dishonest conduct of some of the persons in authority certain persons including the petitioners were encouraged to encroach upon the land. It was naturally therefore for the State authorities to step in and protect the interest of the property, as the obligation is vested in them. 7. No doubt the order passed by the learned Munsif in the case in question could be an observation in the injunction petition but prima facie such observation cannot be omitted or ignored till the finding or declaration comes contrary to what has been recorded in the said order. 8. In view of the above position, this Court may not be inclined to interfere with Annexure 1 and 2. 9. However, it is made clear that in case the civil court does declare the status of the land which will have reflection in favour of these petitioners, even though they may not be parties to the said suit, then there may be an occasion for them to agitate the matter at an appropriate time. They are also free to join the proceeding in the title suit if they so want to defend their interest. They are also free to join the proceeding in the title suit if they so want to defend their interest. They may move the Civil Court if they feel their case is treated differently from the others who have decided to approach the Civil Court. This Court would not like to create any serious prejudice to the interest of these petitioners if they want to move the civil court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate declaration as prima facie this Court is not satisfied that the action taken by the respondent authorities in terms of Annexure-1 and 2 are de hors the law or their jurisdiction to act upon the same. 10. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.