Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 91 (PAT)

Vishwanath Dubey v. State Of Bihar

2012-01-16

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. So far as the contempt case is concerned, the Division Bench by order dated 8.12.2009 passed in CWJC No.17099 of 2009 merely directed the Collector, Rohtas to take a final decision on the basis of an enquiry. This Court ordered for an enquiry so that facts may be clear to the Collector, Rohtas particularly when allegations were leveled against Anchal Adhikari that he was trying to help people who had encroached upon public land meant for road. 3. From the show cause filed on behalf of the authorities it appears that the Collector, Rohtas got an enquiry conducted and the report has been annexed as Annexure-A. According to the report dated 15.2.2010 submitted by Additional Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram) to the Collector, Rohtas measurement of the concerned land disclosed encroachment but some people have claimed title over the said land and have moved the Civil Court, Sasaran, particularly in respect of lands of Plot No.231, 239 and 241. On that account, as per opinion of the Government Pleader at Sasaram the Anchal Adhikari, who is Collector under the Act, appears to have stayed the proceedings for removal of the said encroachment under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. The order of the Anchal Adhikari to that effect dated 26.11.2008 passed in Measurement case No.2/ 2008-2009 is available as Annexure-C in the show cause filed in the contempt case as well as in Annexure-1 to the writ petition bearing CWJC NO.4191 of 2010. 4. In the show cause it has been pleaded that the Collector, Rohtas has not been able to take any decision on account of pendency of CWJC No.4191 of 2010 in which an interim order for maintaining status quo was passed on 30.3.2010. 5. In our considered view, the order of the Division Bench has been carried out and complied with substantially be getting an enquiry done through the Additional Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram). Now, the Collector, Rohtas has to take a final decision as to what should be done on the basis of the said report. He has to take a decision in accordance with law keeping in view all the materials including the opinion of the Government Pleader and orders, if any, passed in the pending civil matters before the Civil Court, Rohtas relating to Plot Nos.231, 239 and 241. 6. He has to take a decision in accordance with law keeping in view all the materials including the opinion of the Government Pleader and orders, if any, passed in the pending civil matters before the Civil Court, Rohtas relating to Plot Nos.231, 239 and 241. 6. The Collector will be well advised to keep in mind that where there is a bona fide dispute of title and possession, summary proceeding under the Act is not advisable and the authorities may have to wait for decision by the Civil Court if the matter has been taken to the Civil Court. In other cases where there is no dispute of title or possession and only a pretence of possession over public land meant for road has been raised and the matter has not been taken to Civil Court, the matter would be different and the Collector, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may take a decision that the suitable action should be taken further under the provisions of the Act. We would not like to go into the merit of the matter because the Collector has been left free to decide the relevant issues as per law and the policy because some of the matters are said to be pending before the Civil Court, Sasaram. 7. It is made clear that if the land, in the opinion of the Collector, is a public land then he will depute some responsible officer so that matters pending before the Civil Court are contested in proper spirit and not allowed to stagnate for want of proper action by the State and its officials. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion and direction, no further decision is required in the matter. Both the matters i.e. contempt matter and the Writ Petition are accordingly disposed of.