Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1234 (PAT)

Md. Meraj Alam v. State of Bihar

2015-09-18

RAVI RANJAN

body2015
DR. RAVI RANJAN, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The Circle Officer, Mansi is present in person before this Court. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 31.01.2015, as contained in Annexure 1, by which he has been directed not to obstruct the construction of Anganbari Kendra No.09 upon khesra no. 1404 appertaining to khata no.239 of village, Saidpur and vacate the land otherwise action would be taken against him. It is contended that despite Annexures 2 and 3 filed before the Circle Officer as well as the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Anganbari Centre is being constructed over the land which has been purchased by the father of the petitioner, namely, Md. Rajak Alam and upon which jamabandi has already been created in his favour and he was paying rent to the State of Bihar which was issuing rent receipt also in acknowledgment of the same. One of such rent receipt has been brought on record as part of Annexure 3 which is a representation filed before the Circle Officer. It appears from the original records produced by the Circle Officer that on 28.01.2015 report was sought from the concerned and that report of Anchal Amin shows that Anganbari Kendra has been constructed upon the aforesaid land without taking a decision on the representation of the petitioner and without passing a final order in the encroachment case. Its report also appears to have been filed without perusal of the relevant records of rights. 4. In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction that Annexure 1 should be considered as notice upon the petitioner under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to be as “the Act”). The petitioner would be required to file his reply to Annexure 1 within three weeks. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, who is present today, would consider the case of the petitioner on its own merit and in accordance with law. He would also look into the revenue records and khatian etc. and find out as to whether the jamabandi is running in the name of the petitioner or not with respect to the concerned land. If the jamabandi is running in his name then he would not be thrown out in a proceeding initiated under the Act. He would also look into the revenue records and khatian etc. and find out as to whether the jamabandi is running in the name of the petitioner or not with respect to the concerned land. If the jamabandi is running in his name then he would not be thrown out in a proceeding initiated under the Act. Petitioner claims that his father has purchased the land from the settlee of ex-intermediaries by a registered sale deed. Petitioner would also be required to append a copy of the registered sale deed along with his reply before the Circle Officer and after that he would be required to take a final decision in accordance with law within two months after filing of such reply. 5. However, till then, further construction should not continue on the land in question by the respondents as it is contended on behalf of the State that Anganbari Centre is being constructed by the State authority.