Patna High Court
Smt. Sushila Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 25 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9422 of 2022
======================================================
Satyendra Rai, son of late Keshwar Rai, resident of Mohalla-Nepali Nagar,
P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
9. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited through its
Managing Director, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9424 of 2022
======================================================
1. Gajendra Kumar Singh, son of late Bindhyachal Prasad Singh.
2. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Sri Devendra Kumar Singh.
3. Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Singh, son of Sri Uma Shankar Singh.
4. Neeraj Kumar Singh, son of Late Girdhar Gopal Singh.
5. Prakash Mishra, son of Late Chandradeo Mishra.
6. Sudhanshu Kumar, son of Ram Niwas Sharma.
7. Suryakant Mishra, son of Late Suresh Mishra.
8. Sandeep Kumar Singh, son of Sri Manoranjan Kumar Singh.
9. Anjani Kumar, son of Late Bhola Singh.
10. Ram Pravesh Kumar, son of Late Ram Bachan Singh.
All resident of Mohalla - Mahavir Colony, Nepali Nagar, P.O.
Ashiana, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, Patna-25, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna, District-Patna.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Patna, District-Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Sadar Patna, District-Patna.
6. The Bihar State Housing Board Patna through the Managing Director.
7. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.
8. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited through the
Managing Director.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10384 of 2022
======================================================
Indu Sinha @ Indira Sinha, wife of Nripendra Narayan Sinha, resident of
mohalla- Nepali Nagar, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, City - Patna, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, Through its Managing Director, 6 Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10441 of 2022
======================================================
1. Meera Kumari, wife of Birendra Ram, Resident of Village - Mohammada
bad, Police Station- Husaina Bad, District- Balamu, presently residing at
Panchbati Colony, Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
2. Dablu Rajak, son of late Baleshwar Rajak Resident of Mohalla- Panchbati
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Colony, Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
3. Saroja Devi, wife of Onkar Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla - Panchbati
Colony, Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
4. Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Indradeo Sharma, Resident of Mohalla-
Panchbati Colony, Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
5. Vinesh Kumar Paswan, H/O- Late Usha Devi, Son of Late Sitaram Paswan
Resident of Mohalla- Panchbati Colony, Nepali Nagar, Police Station-
Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
6. Nilam Devi, wife of Pramod Baiha, Resident of Mohalla- Panchbati Colony,
Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
7. Kunti Devi Wife of Ram Lakhan Ram Resident of Mohalla- Panchbati
Colony, Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
8. Shakun Devi Wife of Arun Sharma Resident of Mohalla- Panchbati Colony,
Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
9. Uma Kumari Wife of Saroj Rajak Resident of Mohalla- Panchbati Colony,
Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
10. Nagendra Prasad Son of Late Nand Lal Mistry Resident of Mohalla- Nepali
Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Bihar, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
8. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10450 of 2022
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar, son of Sri Mohan Prasad, Machhali Gali, No. 2, Raja Bazar,
Rukunpura, B.V. College, Patna. At present resident of Mohalla-Nepali Nagar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Behind Ashiana Nagar Phase-2 Shaktipuram Lane Talab Par, P.S.- Rajiv
Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board
6. The District Magistrate, Patna
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10611 of 2022
======================================================
Bhaskar Rai, son of Sri Lallan Rai, resident of Hathwa House, South Gandhi
Maidan, Patna P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Distt.- Patna. At present resident of
Mohalla- Nepali Nagar, Shaktipuram Colony, Near Ashiyana Phase- II, P.S.-
Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10743 of 2022
======================================================
Nilam Singh @ Neelam Singh, wife of Sri Brij Kishore Singh, resident of
Plot No. - 255A, Nepali Nagar, 90 feet Road, P.O.-Karpurisadan, P.S.-Rajiv
Nagar, Patna-800025.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretory Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10912 of 2022
======================================================
Bharat Kumar Mahto S/o Sakhi Chandra Mahto, 28, Jagat Vihar Colony,
Ashiana Nagar, Patna 800025. At present resident of Mohalla-Chandra Vihar
Colony, Ashiyana Nagar, P.s.-Rajiv Nagar, District-Patna-800025.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10934 of 2022
======================================================
Sujit Kumar, son of Sri Mahesh Sharma, resident of Mohalla - Nepali Nagar,
Shaktipuram Colony Road, Talab Road, Behind Ashiyana Phase-II, P.S. -
Rajiv Nagar, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10951 of 2022
======================================================
Anjali Kumari wife of Sri Prince Kumar Singh Hathwa House, South Ghandi
Maidan, Near Mourya Hotel, Gandhi Maidan, Patna At present resident of
Mohalla - Nepali Nagar, Shaktipuram Colony Road Near Talab Par behind
Ashiyana Nagar phase - 2 Patna - 800025, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna, Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10974 of 2022
======================================================
Rani Devi, wife of Sushil Kumar Jayswal, permanent resident of Ward No.
-13, Naya Bajar, Bihariganj, Madhepura, At present resident of Mohalla -
Shaktipuram Road Nepali Nagar, Ashiyana, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, District -
Patna - 800025.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11102 of 2022
======================================================
Pushpa Devi Wife of Upendra Sharma, resident of Mohalla - Shaktipuram
Colony, West Nepali Nagar, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11110 of 2022
======================================================
Ranjit Saw S/o Vinod Saw, resident of Mohalla - Nepali Nagar, Plot No.
2605, Shakti Puram Road, Ashiyana Nagar, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna
- 800025.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11125 of 2022
======================================================
Jayanti Sinha, wife of Bhagwan Prasad Sharma, resident of Mohalla-
Shaktipuram Colony, West Nepali Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11202 of 2022
======================================================
Vijay Ray, Son of Manejar Ray Resident of village-Magadh Colony,
Ghurdaur Road, Sector-8, North Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajiv Nagar,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban
Development and Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Sadar Anchal, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11267 of 2022
======================================================
1. Smt. Sushila Devi Wife of Sri Dudheshwar Roy.
2. Deepak Kumar Son of Dudheshwar Roy.
Both Resident of Mohalla- Netajee Subhash Chandra Marg, North
Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban
Development and Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Sadar Anchal, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11368 of 2022
======================================================
Chan Tara Jha, Wife of Pradeep Kumar Jha, Resident of Mohalla - Bajrang
Vihar Colony, North Nepali Nagar, Police Station - Rajiv Nagar, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban
Development and Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Sadar Anchal, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11408 of 2022
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar Son of Sri Shivjee Singh H. No. 6, Road No. 2, Near
Railway Crossing, Indrapuri, Patna- 800024, At present resident of Mohalla-
Nepali Nagar, Behind Ashiyana Nagar Phase 2 Shaktipuram Lane Talab Per
Nepali Nagar Patna, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11468 of 2022
======================================================
Birendra Kumar, Son of Ram Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Digha-West
Ghurdaur Road, Police Station-Digha, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban
Development and Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Sadar Anchal, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11942 of 2022
======================================================
1. Krishna Kumar Son of Late Ram Nagina Ram Resident of Mohalla- Nepali
Nagar, 90 Feet Road, Digha Ashiyana Road, Police Station- Rajiv Nagar,
Post Office- Ashiyana Nagar, District- Patna.
2. Smt. Sunaina Devi W/o Krishna Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Nepali Nagar,
90 Feet Road, Digha Ashiyana Road, Police Station- Rajiv Nagar, Post
Office- Ashiyana Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Urban Development of Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Circle Officer, Patna.
4. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6 Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
5. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
6. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.
... ... Respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12127 of 2022
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar Mishra S/o Indresh Mishra Resident of Mohalla-Nepali
Nagar, Plot No. 2422, Shaktipuram Colony Road, Behind Ashiyana Phase- II,
P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12202 of 2022
======================================================
Rajmuni Devi, Wife of Krishna Ram, Resident of Mohalla - Nepali Nagar, 90
Feet Road, Digha Ashiyana Road, Police Station - Rajiv Nagar, Post Office -
Ashiyana Nagar, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Urban Development of Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Circle Officer, Patna.
4. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6 Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
5. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
6. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12227 of 2022
======================================================
Jay Prakash Nagar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. through its secretary
Arun Kumar Male aged about 67 years son of late Ram Lakhan Sharma
situated at Sai Kripa Mohalla and P.S. Shri Krishnapuri, Patna - 800001.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Urban
Development and Housing, Vikash Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru
Marg, Patna - 800015.
2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna - 800015.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna- 800001.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12575 of 2022
======================================================
Anuket Tiwari Son of Shri Ashok Tiwari, resident of Village Bariswan, P.S.
Shahpur, Bhojpur- 802165.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Urban
Development and Housing Vikash Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru
Marg, Patna - 800015.
2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna - 800015.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna - 800001.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna - 800001.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law and Order, Kotwali Police
Station Campus, Patna - 800001.
6. The Inspector of Police, Dumra Circel, Sheikhpura, Patna - 800014.
7. The Station House Officer, Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna - 800025.
8. Shri Shyam Narayan Singh father's name not known, Sub-Inspector of
Police, Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna - 800025.
9. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Division-3, Bhootnath
Road, Patna - 800026.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12579 of 2022
======================================================
Meena Devi W/o Sri Yogendra Saw R/o Village- Arap, P.S.- Bikram, District-
Patna. At present resident of Mohalla- Nepali Nagar, Shaktipuram Colony
Road, Behind Ashiyana Phase- II, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13137 of 2022
======================================================
Prabhawati Devi W/o Shri Triloki Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Nepali Nagar,
Plot No. 2606, Ashiyana Nagar P.S. -Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna - 800025.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13296 of 2022
======================================================
Ramita Singh @ Ramita Kumari W/o Shri Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh,
then resided at Road No. 21 Digha Bagicha, Rajiv Nagar, Dinapur-cum-
Khagaul, Patna, presently residing at Mohalla- Shaktipuram Extension,
Nepali Nagar, Behind Ashiana Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna-
800025.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principle Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13740 of 2022
======================================================
Ram Balak Singh S/o Shri Eak Ram Singh resident of 1A Block-A, Ambey
Shri Apartment, Near Ascent Public School, Rukanpura, Patna- 800014,
presently residing at Mohalla- Nepali Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District-
Patna- 800025.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13825 of 2022
======================================================
Manish Kumar, son of Anil Kumar Mishra resident of Mohalla- Nepali Nagar,
P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna. Presently resides at W/o Manish Kumar,
886/A-49, First Floor, Flat No. 3, Aditya Apartment, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli,
South Delhi.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel
Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary Bihar State Housing Board.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Circle Officer Patna Sadar, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14994 of 2022
======================================================
Nilam Devi Wife of Pramod Baitha, Resident of Mohalla-Panchbati Colony,
Nepali Nagar, Police Station-Rajivnagar, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
3. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Bihar, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
8. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15032 of 2022
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Indradeo Sharma Resident of Mohalla- Panchbati
Colony, Nepali Nagar, Police Station- Rajivnagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, 6, Sardar
Patel Marg, Patna.
4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Marg,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Patna.
7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
8. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9422 of 2022)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Basant Choudhary, Senior Advocate
Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Abbas Haider (SC-6)
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-6
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9424 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC- 9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10384 of 2022)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Koshalendra Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha (AAG-7)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10441 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Binod Singh. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC- 9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10450 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC- 9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10611 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Abbas Haider (SC- 6)
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-6
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10743 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha (AAG-7)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10912 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha (AAG-7)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10934 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha (AAG-7)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10951 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC- 9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10974 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Abbas Haider (SC- 6)
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-6
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11102 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC- 9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11110 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh (GA-3)
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11125 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha (AAG-7)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11202 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh (GA-3)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11267 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha (AAG-7)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11368 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Abbas Haider (SC-6)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11408 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh (GA- 3)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11468 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC-9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11942 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh (GA-3)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12127 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Abbas Haider (Sc6)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12202 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Abbas Haider (Sc6)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12227 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh (GA-3)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12575 of 2022)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh (GA-3)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12579 of 2022)
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr.Kinkar Kumar (SC-9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13137 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr.Kinkar Kumar (SC-9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13296 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr.Yogendra Prasad Sinha (AAG-7)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13740 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh ( GA- 3 )
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13825 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Abbas Haider (SC- 6)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14994 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Abbas Haider (SC-6)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15032 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC-9)
For the Housing Board : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For S.B.P.D.C.L. : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Viswas Vijeta, Amicus Curiae
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 25-05-2023
All the writ petitions have been filed by the
petitioners challenging the illegal demolition of their houses in
Mohalla - Nepali Nagar / Rajiv Nagar. Since the issue raised in
all the writ petitions are similar, they have been heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of
C.W.J.C. No.9422 of 2022 and C.W.J.C. No. 9424 of 2022 are
treated as the lead matter.
3. The facts of the cases are stated as under:-
4. The Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter
to be referred/described as "the Housing Board") in the year
1974 had acquired 1024.52 acres of land in Rajiv Nagar area on
both sides of Ashiyana-Digha road for a colony named as Digha
Housing Colony. As per the prevalent law, the land owners were
to be paid a compensation of Rs.1361 per sq. ft. of land. The
acquisition proceedings were challenged by some of the
erstwhile land owners and ultimately, the matter travelled upto
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, the acquisition
proceedings were upheld in favour of the Housing Board. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Housing Board to pay
compensation through the District Magistrate, Patna and
accordingly, the Housing Board paid a sum of Rs.17.42 crores in
the account of the District Magistrate, Patna in lieu of
compensation but, the farmers have not received the amount of
compensation.
5. As the process of awarding compensation got
delayed and the majority of the farmers were denied payment of
compensation for their lands, they started selling/transferring
their plots to various cooperative societies/individuals, which
are situated on the eastern side of Ashiyana-Digha road. The
area of eastern side is approximately 600 acres and odd and is
occupied by the members of such societies/individuals, who
after purchasing the plots constructed the houses and are living
therein. Some of them have constructed commercial buildings
which are being used for commercial purposes. The remaining
400 and odd acres of land which were acquired is located on the
western side of the Ashiyana- Digha road known as Nepali
Nagar.
6. Earlier, the State Government, in order to
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
resolve the dispute, had come up with Digha Acquired Land
Settlement Act, 2010 which was notified on November 27, 2013
(hereinafter to be referred as "the Digha Land Settlement Act,
2010"). The State Government had enacted the law in 2010 to
settle the plots in favour of the residents of Nepali Nagar. In
2014, the State Government announced Digha Acquired Land
Settlement Scheme, 2014 (hereinafter to be referred as "the
Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014") under Section 3 of the
Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010. The Digha Land Settlement
Scheme, 2010 provides that settlement of land in favour of
unauthorized occupants would be done after realizing the
settlement charge at the Minimum Value Register (MVR) rate.
Occupants having less than 2 Kathas of land will have to pay
25% of MVR as settlement charge. Occupants having land over
2 kathas, would have to pay 50% of MVR as settlement charge.
Similarly, if the plot is located on the main road or principle
road, the occupant will have to pay 75% of MVR as settlement
charge. Settlement is 100% of MVR for the commercial plots.
There was no policy to settle the plots on the western side of
Ashiyana-Digha road i.e. in relation to the land of 400 acres
situated at Nepali Nagar as per the existing MVR in the area.
However, in terms of Section-7 of the Digha Land Settlement
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Act, 2010, the Housing Board was entitled to take possession of
vacant land comprising area about 400 acres of land in Sectors
1, 2, 5, 8 and 10.
7. Section 7 of the Digha Land Settlement Act,
2010 reads as under:-
"7. Board to take possession of vacant land.-
The Board shall be entitled to take
possession of vacant land comprised in
an area of about 400 acres of land
situated in Sectors 1, 2, 5, 8 and 10.
Provided that the constructed
portion in the form of dwelling houses or
commercial buildings shall be entitled for
ex-gratia payment as well as an
additional amount for the constructed
area to be determined by the Board and
approved by the Government.
Provided further that while
framing and implementing the scheme
under Section- 3, the Board may earmark
a compact area for settlement in favour
of only those unauthorised occupants
who have constructed only their
residential houses,
Provided further that unauthorised
occupants shall not be entitled to
settlement in the area described in
Section-7, except the area which has been
earmarked by the Board in the scheme
for the said purpose."
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
8. The first proviso to Section 7 of the Digha
Land Settlement Act, 2010 provides that unauthorized occupants
who had constructed portion in form of dwelling houses or
commercial buildings shall be entitled for ex-gratia payment as
well as an additional amount for the constructed areas to be
determined by the Board and approved by the Government. The
second proviso to Section 7 of the Act imposes an obligation on
the Board to ear-mark a compact area for settlement in favour of
only those unauthorized occupants who have constructed only
their residential houses. The third proviso to Section 7 of the Act
further provides that unauthorized occupants shall not be
entitled to settle in the area described in Section 7, except the
area which has been earmarked by the Board in the Scheme for
the said purpose.
9. Thereafter, the Digha Acquired Land
Settlement Rules, 2014 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Digha
Land Settlement Rules, 2014) has been framed for enforcement
of the Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010. As per the aforesaid
Rule, the unauthorized occupants were required to apply, within
60 days of publication of the notice, to the Board in a prescribed
form (Form-A) for settlement of their respective plots of land.
The erstwhile land owners/transferee were required to apply
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
within 60 days of publication of notice in a form (Form-B)
prescribed by the Board for ex-gratia payment as determined by
the Board. As per the second supplementary counter affidavit
filed by the Housing Board, the cut off date was extended from
time to time and the last extension was granted till 31.05.2018
through notice published in daily newspaper dated 28.04.2018.
10. The demolition started on 03.07.2022
pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2022 passed in Encroachment
Case No.70 of 2021-22. The notice dated 25.04.2022 does not
mention the name of any person to whom the notice has been
issued. It mentions only the plot numbers and the nature of
encroachment and it has been directed that the land belonging to
the Bihar State Housing Board has been encroached, which is an
encroachment under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act,
and therefore, the noticee should produce the documents (in
Form-1) in support of their claims on 23.05.2022 at 2:30 P.M.
and if the noticee failed to do so, an ex parte order shall be
passed. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 20.06.2022 in
Form-2, in which the name of nine noticees were mentioned,
which are:- (i) Nirala Cooperative Housing Society, Patna (ii)
Smt. Madhu Prakash, wife of Sri Prakah (iii) Sri Sujit Raj, son
of late Narayan Singh (iv) Sri Anil Kumar Vaste, son of late
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Ramkali Devi (v) Smt. Punam Prasad, wife of Sri Surendra
Prasad (vi) Sri Dularchand Prasad, son of late Visheshwar
Prasad (vii) Sri Arun Kumar Sinha, son of late Kapil Muni
Singh (viii) Smt. Meena Devi, wife of Sri Ramashraya Prasad
Singh (ix) Smt. Mankeshwar Singh, wife of Jatadhari Singh.
This notice says that the land mentioned in the notice belongs to
the Housing Board and the same has been declared as
encroached under Section 6(i) of the Encroachment Act and the
noticees were directed to remove the encroachment within a
week. In case, they refused or were unable to do so, the lands in
question will be vacated by use of force.
11. The subject matter of the dispute in the writ
petitions pertains to forced eviction of residents of Nepali Nagar
which came up in a portion of 400 acres of disputed land on the
western side of Ashiyana-Digha road. The Bihar State Housing
Board planned to build a Housing Colony in the area of 400
acres, which triggered violent protest when the police force and
the officers of the Patna District administration with bulldozers
demolished as many as 90 houses/buildings in the 400 acres of
lands. The demolition started surprisingly on 03.07.2022, when
all the Government offices and the Courts are closed. By the
time the writ petitions were filed before this Court and heard,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
about 90 houses/buildings were demolished forcibly by the
authorities with the help of police without following the due
process of law, as has been contended by learned counsels for
the writ petitioners.
12. In C.W.J.C. No. 9422 of 2022, the following
prayer has been made by the petitioner:-
"a. For a direction to the respondent
authorities to immediately stop
demolition of the house of petitioner
situated in Mohalla - Nepali Nagar, P.S.-
Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna, Khata
no.292, plot no.2422, Digha Thana No.1
under Patliputra Circle, Ward no.2,
property no.1273133, Revenue Area-268
measuring area 1 katha 10 dhur.
(b) For quashing of the order dated
20.06.2022 passed in Encroachment
Case No.70 of 2021-22 and entire
proceedings of the said encroachment
case including the notices dated
25.04.2022 and 20.06.2022 in the facts
and circumstances of case.
(c) For restraining the respondent authorities
from taking any action disturbing the
lawful possession of the petitioner over
the house and the land disputed in Plot
no.242, Mohalla-Nepali Nagar, P.S.-
Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
(d) For any other relief(s) for which the
petitioners are entitled."
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
13. In connected writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C.
No.9424 of 2022, the following prayer has been made by the
petitioners:-
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of MANDAMUS,
commanding and directing the
Respondent Authorities not to demolish
the houses constructed by the
individuals in Mohalla-Nepali Nagar,
Patna-25 on the land allegedly acquired
by the State in the year 1974 for the
Respondent Housing Board for the
purposes that the Board would allot
open plot to its members for the
purposes of construction of their
residential houses on the ground that:-
(a) if in view of the provisions contained
under Section 11A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as 1894 Act), the acquisition
proceeding initiated in the year 1974
and lapsed in 1978, the land in question
goes away from the category of
"acquired land" and no authority has the
jurisdiction to demolish the structures
existing therein if it has been
constructed by the individuals after the
purchase of land from its Khatiyani
Raiyat as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mohan -Versus-
State of Maharashtra since reported in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
2007 (2) PLJR (SC)-163; (b) Even in
view of the provisions contained under
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as 2013 Act) since though the
award of the land acquired in the year
1974 was prepared in 1978, however, the
Respondent Housing Board or the State
had not taken the physical possession of
the land rather it comes under the
physical possession of Khiyani Raiyat
throughout before they had sold it to the
individuals after realizing the cost of the
land.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding
and directing the Respondent Authorities
for settlement of those pieces of land in
favour of individuals after holding the
survey of an area on which they have
constructed their houses and they are
residing therein since much-much ago, in
some cases for last about 40 years, if the
individual house holders are prepared to
pay the amount which the Respondent
Board has offered to other similarly
situated persons but residing in Rajiv
Nagar area situated in eastern part of
Ashiana Digha Road even on equitable
ground that:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
(a) The residents of the area had
purchased their land from the original
landlord after paying its cost and they
have invested their hard earned money to
construct their houses;
(b) If the acquisition for the Board in
1974 was for the construction of planned
residential houses in the city and the
object of the acquisition has already
served its purposes if the land in question
has been used for construction of
residential houses, the State being a
Welfare State and the Board being a
creature of a Welfare State cannot
demolish the houses since it will amount
to loss not only to the individuals but loss
to the nation also.
(iii) For a declaration that if the Respondent
Board had allowed construction of the
residential houses in the land in question
for last about 40 years and the peoples
are residing there peacefully since then,
for which they were bound to oblige not
only the Housing Board Officials but also
the Rajeev Nagar Police Station, their
houses can not be demolished so lightly if
once upon time it was constructed with
the consent of the Board and District
Administration.
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate
writ / writs, order / orders
direction/directions for which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
petitioners would be entitled under the
facts and circumstances of the case."
14. In other connected writ petitions, the
petitioners have made similar/identical prayers.
15. So far as C.W.J.C. No.10743 of 2022 is
concerned, the writ petitioner has prayed for compensation in
view of illegal demolition of a part of her residential house. The
relief claimed in the aforesaid writ petition is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"a. For restraining the respondent
authorities from demolishing the house of
petitioner situated at plot no.-255A of
Nirala Sahakari Griha Nirman Samiti
Ltd.. Tauzi No. 5339, Khata no. 1637,
Survey Plot No. 2433 Mohalla-Nepali
Nagar, Patna measuring area 1960 sq.
feet.
b. For a direction to the respondent
authorities to pay compensation of Rs. 50
lakhs for the loss caused to the petitioner
due to illegal demolition of the major
part of her house situated at plot no.-
255A of Nirala Sahakari Griha Nirman
Samiti Ltd., Tauzi No. 5339, Khata no.-
1637, Survey Plot No. 2433, Mohalla-
Nepali Nagar. Patna measuring area
1960 sq. Feet.
c. For a direction to the respondent
authorities to pay Rs. 1 crore to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
petitioner as compensation for the mental
harassment and trauma caused to the
petitioner and her family due to
demolition of her house without following
due process of law and without taking
any decision as to whether her possession
on her house is unauthorized or not,
along with the legal expenses and any
other cost incurred by the petitioner.
d. For a direction to the respondent
authorities to not disturb the lawful and
peaceful possession of the petitioner over
the house and land situated at plot no
255A, Khata No.1637, Survey Plot 2433,
Nepali Nagar, 90 feet Road, P.S. Rajiv
Nagar, Patna.
e. For any other relief(s) for which the
petitioner is entitled in the facts and
circumstances of this case."
16. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have
annexed the copy of the order dated 20.06.2022. From reading
of the aforesaid order dated 20.06.2022, it appears that pursuant
to the notices, some claimants appeared and they represented
themselves in the Court of Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, who has
passed the order. It is the contention of the petitioners that the
order passed by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar is illegal,
without following the due process of law and without any
service of notice under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Act.
17. On 04.07.2022 writ petitions viz. C.W.J.C.
Nos. 9422 of 2022, 9423 of 2022 and 9424 of 2022 were filed
and were heard together by this Court upon special mentioning
having been allowed by the Motion Bench. This Court after
hearing learned counsel for the parties, restrained the respondent
authorities from proceeding further with demolition of the
dwelling houses. The order dated 04.07.2022 is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"These cases have been listed before this
Court by way of special mentioning
having been allowed by the Motion
Bench. These cases were directed to be
heard at 03.45 P.M. today.
Sri Basant Choudhary, learned
senior counsel assisted by other
advocates mentioned these cases at 3:40
P.M. and brought to the notice of this
Court that since these matters relate to
demolition of houses situated in Neepali
Nagar / Rajiv Nagar, Patna, the same
may be heard.
Considering the urgency of the
matter, the Court started hearing these
cases.
The presence of the District
Magistrate, Patna and the Managing
Director, Bihar State Housing Board was
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
required in the matter so that the Court
should hear the matter. The Court has
waited for them till 4:40 P.M. but they
have not been able to reach the Court
despite messages. The Court cannot wait
for the respondents indefinitely.
It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioners that
demolition has been ordered without
giving personal notice to each and every
house owner and a general notice was
given in the area and thereafter, an order
was passed for demolition of the houses
in question.
Many questions have been raised
at the time of hearing including the fact
that the provisions of the Digha Acquired
Land Settlement Act, 2010 have not been
followed. The proceeding has not been
initiated by the owner of the land i.e.
Bihar State Housing Board but the
proceeding has been initiated under the
provisions of the Public Land
Encroachment Act by the Circle Officer
and his order is appealable before the
Collector but the Collector himself is
supervising the demolition. It has also
been submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that demolition is being
carried without giving any chance to the
petitioners to file appeals.
It is well settled right from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
case of M/S. Motipur Zamindary Co. (P)
Ltd vs The State Of Bihar reported in
AIR 1962 SC 660 and The Gait Public
Library and Institute, Gardanibagh,
Patna vs. The State of Bihar, reported in
1995 (1) PLJR 585 that even an
encroacher has a right and he cannot be
removed without giving opportunity of
hearing and without following the due
procedure of law.
Considering the aforesaid
submissions and also considering the fact
that the houses are being demolished by
the State without following the due
procedure of law, the State Authorities
are restrained from demolishing the
houses situated in Rajiv Nagar / Neepali
Nagar, Patna, till next date of hearing.
The respondents are directed to
file counter affidavit in the matters.
Put up these cases for further
hearing on 06.07.2022 at 2:15 P.M.
This order has been passed in
presence of learned counsel for the State.
It is expected that the demolitions are
stayed forthwith.
When this order has been dictated,
the Managing Director of the Bihar State
Housing Board has appeared in the
Court.
The respondents will not disturb
the occupants of the houses whose houses
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
have been demolished or partially
demolished if they are protecting
themselves in this rainy season and
staying in their demolished houses.
The Police will not take any
coercive step against any protester, who
might have been protesting against this
strong action of the authorities and who
have been made accused by filing FIRs
by the Police/ District Administration.
This Court requests Mr. Md.
Khurshid Alam, AAG-12 for the State to
communicate this order of stay of
demolition to the Collector, Patna, who
will stop the demolition work forthwith.
Let a copy of this order be handed
over to Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12
for the State."
18. Further, this Court vide order dated
14.07.2022 directed the respondent authorities to restore the
electricity and water supply for the residents of Nepali Nagar.
The order dated 14.07.2022 is also quoted hereinbelow:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Today, some additional affidavits
have been filed by the State and the
Housing Board. The copies of the
additional affidavits have been served
upon learned counsel for the petitioners
in the Court itself.
The list, as directed by this Court,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
has been furnished by the State as well as
the Housing Board.
Learned counsel for the
petitioners are directed to add the South
Bihar Power Distribution Company
Limited through its Managing Director as
respondent in these writ petitions.
The South Bihar Power
Distribution Company Limited is directed
to explain as to why earlier order of this
Court for providing temporary electric
connection to the semi demolished houses
is not being complied with.
List these cases on 19.07.2022 at
2:15 P.M. for further hearing.
This Court hopes that before next
date of hearing, the South Bihar Power
Distribution Company Limited will
comply the direction of this Court for
providing temporary electricity
connection to the semi demolished houses
or this Court will direct for personal
appearance of the Managing Director of
the South Bihar Power Distribution
Company Limited.
Sri Kumar Manish, learned
counsel appears for the South Bihar
Power Distribution Company Limited.
Let a copy of this order be handed
over to Sri Kumar Manish, learned
counsel for the South Bihar Power
Distribution Company Limited for
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
communication and compliance."
19. All these writ petitions have been heard in
detail and after hearing the respective parties, on 17.11.2022 the
judgment was reserved by this Court.
20. On behalf of the writ petitioners arguments
were advanced by Sri Basant Choudhary, learned senior counsel.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
before taking drastic steps for demolition of residential houses,
the petitioners ought to have been heard by giving individual
notices. The demolition of the petitioners' houses without
issuance of proper notice under the Bihar Public Encroachment
Act is without jurisdiction as it is incumbent upon the
respondent authorities to issue a proper notice mentioning the
name of the noticee, his/her address, the details of the properties
which are being sought to be under the alleged encroachment
and individual notice should have been provided to each house
owner before initiating the demolition by brute use of force. It is
well known that when the State is going to take drastic action
against its citizen it has to follow the law. It has been argued by
learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the proceeding
under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act has been
conducted in hurried manner and without giving proper
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
opportunity to the petitioners to file appeal or to approach any
other Court/Forum, the houses were demolished by the District
administration.
21. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
taken this Court to the various provisions of the Digha Land
Settlement Act, 2010 and the Scheme framed under Section 3 of
the Act as well as the Digha Land Settlement Rules, 2014. He
has contended that the State Government had already decided to
settle the plots of Nepali Nagar in favour of unauthorized
occupants by enacting the law in 2010. He has drawn the
attention of this Court to the Preamble of the Digha Land
Settlement Act, 2010 to show that the said Act has been enacted
for settlement of land and taking over the possession of the
vacant areas. He has also relied on the definition clause of
Section 2, especially definition of Section 2(r), 2(s) and 2(w)
which provides for the definition of "setlees", "settlement" and
"unauthorized occupants".
22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
also relied upon Sections 6 and 7 of the Digha Land Settlement
Act, 2010 and the provisions of the Digha Land Settlement
Scheme, 2014. It is the contention of learned senior counsel that
unauthorized occupants of the locality had acquired a right
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
under the existence of a particular scheme and Digha Land
Settlement Act, 2010 which provide for the means to facilitate
exercising the right by the unauthorized occupants of Nepali
Nagar. In this case, the means is the settlement policy. It is
contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that
the right of the writ petitioners, in occupation of 400 acres of
land, has been violated since the State has failed to fulfill its
obligation under the Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 and
Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014.
23. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
also argued that demolition of dwelling houses by the Police is
antithetical not only to Article 300(A) of the Constitution of
India but also to the spirit of the Constitution of India as a
whole. It has infringed the right for dignified life of the
petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and by
demolishing the houses of the unauthorized occupants, the State
has actually bulldozed hard-earned freedom of the writ
petitioners.
24. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
further argued that since the State Government and the Housing
Board failed to keep up with their promise of allotting
permanent residence to the erstwhile land owners/settlees within
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
400 acres of land, upon voluntarily surrendering their houses, it
defeats the legitimate expectation of the land owners/settlees of
400 acres of land of Nepali Nagar on the western side of
Ashiyana-Digha road.
25. On behalf of the State, Sri Lalit Kishore,
learned Advocate General has advanced his arguments. He has
submitted that these writ petitions, as framed, are not
maintainable since none of the petitioners has provided the
material particulars about due date of purchase of land, which is
relevant for deciding the dispute. He has further contended that
as the cause of action is illusory, writ of mandamus cannot be
issued by this Court. He has further contended that the
petitioners have failed to establish their legal right to the
performance of the legal duties and hence, these writ petitions
are not maintainable.
26. The learned Advocate General has also
submitted that the various provisions of the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act has been strictly followed before undertaking
the exercise of forced eviction and relies upon the contents of
the first supplementary counter affidavit of the State
Government. He has also submitted that on the first day i.e.
02.07.2022, the boundary walls of the houses were demolished
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
and on the second day i.e. on 03.07.2022 the dwelling houses
were demolished. Further, learned Advocate General has
contended that the wisdom of legislature is not a subject matter
of judicial review and has referred to Sections 6 and 7 of the
Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 and argued that Sections 6 and
7 of the aforesaid Act operate for different areas and as the
Housing Board was entitled to take possession of vacant lands
comprising in the area of about 400 acres situated in Sectors 1,
2, 5, 8 and 10 under Section 7 of the Digha Land Settlement Act,
2010, no construction could be allowed in the said area.
27. Lastly, the learned Advocate General has
submitted that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be
invoked against the statute and relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others vs. United Bank of India & Others reported
in (2016) 2 SCC 757, more particularly, paragraph nos. 43 and
44 of the said judgment.
28. On behalf of the Housing Board, Sri P.K.
Shahi, learned senior counsel has appeared and advanced his
arguments. He has contended that these writ petitions are
premature and are not maintainable as the same have been filed
in anticipation of injury by the petitioners. He has also referred
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
to Sections 6 and 7 of the Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 to
show that the petitioners have no right to make construction
over the land of 400 acres i.e. in Nepali Nagar and they are
encroachers of the land. He has further contended that the
Constitution of India does not recognize any fundamental right
to live by committing encroachment on public land and points
out that under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, the public authorities are empowered to
remove encroachment on public land for the purposes of
fulfilling the object of the land and systematic development of
said area of about 400 acres. He has submitted that the
authorities have followed the procedure as prescribed under the
Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act for restoring the
possession of the properties for use of the Housing Board.
29. Learned senior counsel for the Housing
Board has further submitted that the Housing Board in terms of
the Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014 has notified the
procedure for calculating the ex gratia payment in respect of the
claimants in Nepali Nagar and the same was advertised in the
daily newspaper published on 11.09.2014 and a cut off date to
make application in requisite form was extended till 31.05.2018
and 93 applications were received in proper form i.e. Form-A.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Form-B is for determination and payment of ex gratia amount in
both categories of 600 acres and 400 acres of land. Only few
applicants were found eligible for ex gratia payment but, the
same could not be paid because of pending Title Suit between
the parties.
30. By an order dated 06.07.2022 this Court has
appointed Sri Santosh Kumar and Sri Viswas Vijeta, learned
counsel as amicus curiae in these matters. Learned amicus
curiae have contended that the Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010
and the Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014, recognize that
the settlement is an essential component of unauthorized
occupants' right to shelter and housing so that no eviction can
take place without complying with the provisions of the Digha
Land Settlement Act, 2010. They have further submitted that
Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 and the Digha Land
Settlement Scheme, 2014 should be interpreted in a
right/affirmative manner so that the unauthorized occupants
residing in the area about 400 acres (Nepali Nagar) were eligible
for settlement. They have further contended that the enactment
of 2010 Act, the Scheme and the Rules framed under 2010 Act,
are beneficial statute and scheme, which ought to be broadly and
liberally interpreted so as to maximize their scope and their
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
intention.
31. By relying upon the various provisions of the
Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 learned amicus curiae have
contended that the provisions of the aforesaid Act are intended
to protect the substantive rights of unauthorized occupants and
erstwhile land owners/transferees. The provisions favour the
class of persons for which it has been enacted. They have further
contended that for interpreting expressions like "settlee"
"settlement" and "unauthorized occupants" etc. in the definition
clause, a construction is required to be placed with regard to the
purpose and protective intendment of the legislation, which
furthers the purpose for which such legislation was made i.e. to
protect the unauthorized occupants, erstwhile land owners/
transferees.
32. It has been contended by learned amicus
curiae that purposive approach while interpreting the provisions
of the Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 is for equity, justice and
good conscience. This is the hallmark of the Preamble of the
Constitution. The dominant legislative intent of the Digha Land
Settlement Act, 2010 is to settle the lands in favour of the
unauthorized occupants and therefore, the Digha Land
Settlement Act, 2010 should receive purposeful and functional
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
interpretation.
33. Learned amicus curiae have referred to
Clause 3.2 of the Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014 and has
strongly urged that the unauthorized settlees within the area of
400 acres (Nepali Nagar) are the beneficiary under the Scheme
and are eligible for permanent residents before surrendering
their possession of the houses. It has further been contended that
failure to take up development activities as enjoined by Clause-
3.2 of the Scheme infringes the rights of the writ petitioners
guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of
India. Further, it is contended that the State Government has
failed to keep up with its promise and it has defeated the
legitimate expectation and Constitutional trust of the petitioners.
34. It has further been contended by learned
amicus curiae that the State Government is bound to keep up
with its promise and meet the legitimate expectation of the writ
petitioners by handing over the possession of the permanent
residents in the area to be earmarked by the Housing Board and
that they should not go back against their own commitment
given by them under Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 and the
Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014.
35. It has been contended that inaction on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
part of the respondent authorities i.e. the State Government and
the Housing Board in not taking any step under the Digha Land
Settlement Scheme, 2014 amounts to deprivation of chance of
the writ petitioners to get the benefit under the said Scheme and
it amounts to violation of the rights of the petitioners.
36. Learned amicus curiae have further argued
that issuing eviction/demolition notice in omnibus manner i.e.
without individual notice and without considering all the options
available with the State Government to provide permanent
residence, is clearly an unjust, unreasonable, unfair and illegal
decision and therefore, violates the due process clause and
deserves to be quashed and set aside. They have also contended
that the State acted in a most hasty manner and used brute force
to evict the unauthorized settlees without giving them any
opportunity and time to pursue their legal remedies and the very
initiation of the encroachment proceeding without following the
due process of law goes at the jurisdiction of the order passed by
the respondent authorities under the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act.
37. The amicus curiae have further argued that
the action of evicting the petitioners in ineffective method is in
violation of the fundamental right to life of the petitioners as
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
well as in violation of the International Covenant and
International law obligations of the State as well as against the
mandate of the Constitution. It has further been argued that till
alternative residence were provided by the State Government to
the unauthorized settlees, as per the Scheme of the State
Government, they could not have been thrown out forcibly by
the respondent authorities. He has further argued that the
Constitutional Court should not take narrower view of seeing
and treating the petitioners as encroachers upon the Government
land and must protect the fundamental right of many families
(approx 3100) residing in the area of 400 acres of land.
38. Learned amicus curiae has also contended
that cut off date for the beneficiaries under the Scheme was
extended till 31.05.2018 which is mentioned in the second
supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Housing Board. He
has further submitted that since the cut off date has been
extended by the Executives so as to confer the benefits to the
eligible persons, it should not be subjected to the same rigour of
interpretation to which legislature documents are subjected and
the hyper semantic and strict interpretation should be avoided in
the present case.
Findings / Analysis
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
39. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
the issues to be decided is as to whether the writ petitions are
maintainable or not and as to whether the petitioners are entitled
to any relief from this Court, as prayed in the writ petitions.
Issue of maintainability of the writ petitions.
40. Sri Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General
appearing for the State of Bihar and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned
senior counsel appearing for the Housing Board have raised
objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions.
It has been argued by them that since the writ petitions have
been filed in anticipation of injury, this Court cannot issue a writ
of mandamus. They have further argued that in absence of a
legal right to enforce the performance of any duty, these writ
petitions are not maintainable and the same should be dismissed.
41. The conditions precedent for maintaining a
writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus appear to be (a)
The petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus must show
that there is a legal right leading to the performance of the legal
duty by a party against whom writ of mandamus is sought for;
(b) A writ of mandamus may be issued to compel something to
be done which imposes a legal duty; (c) The writ of mandamus
is only granted to compel the performance of duties of public
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
nature; (d) The Court may/will as a general rule and in exercise
of its discretion, refuse a writ of mandamus when there is an
alternative specific remedy at law which is not less
convenient/beneficial and effective. As stated in the Hulsbury's
Law of England, 3rd Edition, by Lord Symonds, at Page 105, the
legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be with the
applicant himself and the Court will therefore only enforce the
performance of statutory duties of public bodies on the
application of a person, who can show that he himself has a
legal right to insist on such performance.
42. In the opinion of this Court, in the present
case, the writ petitioners have been able to bring their case
within the principles of issuance of a writ of mandamus since
the State Government and the Housing Board have failed to act
in discharge of their duties of public in nature or a public duty.
43. At this stage, it is relevant to quote Clause-
3.2 of the Digha Settlement Scheme, 2014, which is as under:-
"3.2 Ex-gratia Amount: The erstwhile
landowner or their transferee shall be
paid over and above the awarded
compensation under Land Acquisition
Act, ex-gratia amount, as may be fixed,
against their respective plot of land in
such a manner that the gross amount (i.e.
compensation plus ex-gratia amount)
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
does not exceed the total amount payable
as mentioned below:
Total amount payable : A, where
A = District Registrar Office value of
the particular plot of land in the
financial year under consideration as
adopted by the Board.
Provided that as per the spirit of proviso
to Section 7 of the Act, such erstwhile
landowners or their transferees in area of
about 400 acres of land comprised in
sector 1, 2, 5, 8 and 10 (i.e. in the
western side of so-called Digha-Ashiana
Road), who have constructed a brick-
mortar dwelling house shall get allotment
of flats of reasonable size in the
earmarked area of proposed township to
be constructed by the Board on the
condition of their written oath to vacate
and handover the occupied space to the
Board before getting possession of flat."
44. A bare reading of Clause 3.2 unequivocally
shows that the Housing Board will provide permanent residence
(flats) to the erstwhile land owners or their transferees within the
ear-marked area of proposed township to be constructed by the
Housing Board and inaction on the part of the Housing Board in
not taking any steps under Clause-3.2 of the Digha Land
Settlement Scheme, 2014 amounts to not only deprivation of a
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
chance to get flats as per Clause- 3.2 of the Settlement Scheme
but also amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of the
erstwhile land owners or their transferees and the case of the
petitioners are fully covered under Clause 3.2 of the Digha Land
Settlement Scheme, 2014. Further, issuance of
eviction/demolition notice without first attempting to re-
settle/provide alternative accommodation to the land owners or
their transferees is in complete violation of the due process of
law as guaranteed under the Digha Land Settlement Scheme,
2014. The action of the respondent authorities in not
implementing the scheme of the State Government amounts to
depriving the petitioners of their statutory rights to permanent
residence guaranteed under the Digha Land Settlement Scheme,
2014.
45. It is trite law that the writ petitioners can
enforce their right before it is actually infringed in a Court of
law. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
S.M.D. Kiran Pasha vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh &
Others reported in (1990) 1 SCC 328 is for the proposition that
the writ petition can be filed before the right is actually
infringed. Relevant paragraph i.e. paragraph no.14 is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"14. Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
notwithstanding anything in Article 32,
empowers the High Court throughout the
territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any
person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any government
within those territories directions, orders
or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto and certiorari, or any of
them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III and for any
other purpose; and it also envisages
making of interim orders, whether by way
of injunction or stay or in any other
manner in such a proceeding. Article 21
giving protection of life and personal
liberty provides that no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure
established by law. For enforcement of
one's right to life and personal liberty
resort to Article 226(1) has thus been
provided for. What is the ambit of
enforcement of the right? The word
'enforcement' has also been used in
Article 32 of the Constitution which
provides the remedy for enforcement of
rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution. The word 'enforcement' has
not been defined by the Constitution.
According to Collins English Dictionary
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
to enforce means to ensure observance of
or obedience to a law, decision etc.
Enforcement, according to Webster's
Comprehensive Dictionary, means the act
of enforcing, or the state of being
enforced, compulsory execution;
compulsion. Enforce means to compel
obedience to laws; to compel
performance, obedience by physical or
moral force. If enforcement means to
impose or compel obedience to law or to
compel observance of law, we have to see
what it does precisely mean. The right to
life and personal liberty has been
guaranteed as a fundamental right and
for its enforcement one could resort to
Article 226 of the Constitution for
issuance of appropriate writ,' order or
direction. Precisely at what stage resort
to Article 226 has been envisaged in the
Constitution? When a right is so
guaranteed, it has to be understood in
relation to its orbit and its infringement.
Conferring the right to life and liberty
imposes a corresponding duty on the rest
of the society, including the State, to
observe that right, that is to say, not to
act or do anything which would amount
to infringement of that right, except in
accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law. In other words,
conferring the right on a citizen involves
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
the compulsion on the rest of the society,
including the State, not to infringe that
right. The question is at what stage the
right can be enforced? Does a citizen
have to wait till the right is infringed? Is
there no way of enforcement of the right
before it is actually infringed? Can the
obligation or compulsion on the part of
the State to observe the right be made
effective only after the right is violated or
in other words can there be enforcement
of a fight to life and personal liberty
before it is actually infringed? What
remedy will be left to a person when his
right to life is violated? When a right is
yet to be violated, but is threatened with
violation can the citizen move the court
for protection of the right? The protection
of the right is to be distinguished from its
restoration or remedy after violation.
When right to personal liberty is
guaranteed and the rest of the society,
including the State, is compelled or
obligated not to violate that right, and if
someone has threatened to violate it or its
violation is imminent, and the person
whose right is so threatened or its
violation so imminent resorts to Article
226 of the Constitution, could not the
court protect observance of his right by
restraining those who threatened to
violate it until the court examines the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
legality of the action? Resort to Article
226 after the right to personal liberty is
already violated is different from the pre-
violation protection. Post-violation resort
to Article 226 is for remedy against
violation and for restoration of the right,
while pre-violation protection is by
compelling observance of the obligation
or compulsion under law not to infringe
the right by all those who are so
obligated or compelled. To surrender and
apply for a writ of habeas corpus is a
post-violation remedy for restoration of
the right which is not the same as
restraining potential violators in case of
threatened violation of the right. The
question may arise what precisely may
amount to threat or imminence of
violation. Law surely cannot take action
for internal thoughts but can act only
after overt acts. If overt acts towards
violation have already been done and the
same has come to the knowledge of the
person threatened with that violation and
he approaches the court under Art. 226
giving sufficient particulars of proximate
actions as would imminently lead to
violation of right, should not the court
call upon those alleged to have taken
those steps to appear and show cause
why they should not be restrained from
violating that right? Instead of doing so
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
would it be the proper course to be
adopted to tell the petitioner that the
court cannot take any action towards
preventive justice until his right is
actually violated whereafter alone he
could petition for a writ of habeas
corpus? In the instant case when the writ
petition was pending in court and the
appellant's right to personal liberty
happened to be violated by taking him
into custody in preventive detention,
though he was released after four days,
but could be taken into custody again,
would it be proper for the court to reject
the earlier writ petition and tell him that
his petition has become infructuous and
he had no alternative but to surrender
and then petition for a writ of habeas
corpus? The difference of the two
situations, as we have seen, have
difference legal significance. If a
threatened invasion of a right is removed
by restraining the potential violator from
taking any steps towards violation, the
rights remain protected and the
compulsion against its violation is
enforced. If the right has already been
violated, what is left is the remedy
against such violation and for restoration
of the right."
46. Therefore, the contention of the respondents,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
as advanced by learned Advocate General for the State of Bihar
and learned senior counsel for the Housing Board, with regard
to non-maintainability of the writ petitions is not acceptable and
this Court holds that these writ petitions are maintainable.
Issue of applicability of the Digha Land
Settlement Act, 2010, the Digha Land
Settlement Scheme, 2014 and Digha
Land Settlement Rules, 2014.
47. The Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 was
notified on November 27, 2013. The Preamble of the aforesaid
Act reads as follows:-
"Preamble. - WHEREAS, an area of
1024.52 acres of land was acquired by
the Government of Bihar at Digha within
Patna Municipal Corporation for Bihar
State Housing Board, a statutory body,
with an object that the Board shall
develop and provide urban housing
facilities to the citizens,
WHEREAS, the acquisition
proceeding was challenged by some of
the erstwhile land owners and ultimately
the matter went up to the Supreme Court
of India, wherein, the acquisition
proceeding was upheld,
WHEREAS, acquisition was
completed and the award was
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
pronounced,
WHEREAS, to meet the cost of
acquisition and development the Board
obtained interest bearing loan from the
Government/financial Institutions on
certain terms and conditions,
WHEREAS, the Board has
deposited a sum of Rs. 17.42 crores with
the Collector, Patna towards the
acquisition cost,
WHEREAS, during the process of
acquisition and even after the acquisition
various erstwhile land owners unlawfully
delivered possession of the portions of
the acquired land to various co-operative
societies/individuals, either through deed
of transfer registered in Metropolitan
Cities or through any other written
instrument notwithstanding, that such
land holders had no title in the land
transferred,
WHEREAS, with the lapse of time
approximately 600 and odd acres out of
the said acquired land has been
unlawfully occupied to a major extent by
members of such societies/individuals,
who have constructed their houses and
are living therein or have constructed
commercial buildings for commercial
use,
WHEREAS, about 400 and odd
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
acres of the remaining acquired land is
largely free from unauthorized
construction, except for a few
unauthorised constructions in smaller
areas,
WHEREAS, a Public Interest
Litigation was filed in the Patna High
Court in the year 1987 by a social
organization alleging inaction on the part
of the State Government and its agencies
in the execution of the proposed housing
scheme over the acquired land,
WHEREAS, the Patna High Court
passed several orders from time to time
with respect to the removal of the
unauthorised occupations and allotment
of the plots of land carved out from the
acquired land to different categories of
applicants as well as in regard to
execution of the proposed housing
scheme over the acquired land and
accordingly under the said orders of the
Patna High Court all possible steps were
taken by the Board with the assistance of
the State Government/District
Administration for execution of the
proposed housing scheme over the
acquired land but the same proved to be
futile mainly on account of the stiff
resistance of the unauthorised occupants
in collusion with the erstwhile land
owners, leading to serious law and order
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
problems,
WHEREAS, taking into account
the said factual position the Patna High
Court also observed that the State
Government and the Board should
endeavour to frame a scheme embracing
within it interest of the unauthorised
occupants and the applicants for
allotment of plots of land under different
categories,
WHEREAS, the erstwhile land
owners have represented and demanded
additional amount in view of the low
market value which prevailed on the date
of notification under Section-4 of the
Land Acquisition Act and rapid rise in
the valuation of the acquired land
thereafter,
WHEREAS, it is considered
expedient that the entire acquired area
may be classified in two categories, one
which is largely under unauthorised
occupation and the other which is mostly
free from unauthorised occupation
encroachment with only a few
construction in smaller areas,
WHEREAS, with a view to solve
the vexed problem it is considered
imperative to make a law authorising the
Board or any other special purpose
vehicle for the settlement of land and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
taking over the possession of vacant
areas."
48. It aimed at categorization of land and through
it unauthorized occupants are to be regularized by way of final
settlement of plots after payment of penalty by them. The
various provisions of the Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010 are
intended to protect the substantive rights of erstwhile land
owners and transferees. The provisions favour the class of
persons for which it is made. While interpreting the expressions
like "settlee", "settlement" and "unauthorized occupants" etc. in
the definition clause, a construction is required to be placed with
regard to the protective intendment of the legislation i.e. which
furthers the purpose for which the Settlement Act has been
enacted.
49. The Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014
prescribes provision for regularizing houses of 600 acres of the
encroached land on the eastern side of the Ashiyana- Digha road
by taking a penalty from the encroachers. It also prescribes for
requisitioning around 400 acres of land on the western side of
Ashiyana-Digha road by paying ex-gratia amount to the land
owners. The Scheme further provides that permanent residence
(flats) would be provided to the residents settled in 400 acres of
land, in the earmarked area as per Clause-3.2 of the Digha Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Settlement Scheme, 2014.
50. The contention of learned senior counsel for
the petitioners that the provisions of the Digha Land Settlement
Act of 2010, the Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014 and the
Digha Land Settlement Rules, 2014 provide a right in favour of
the settlees is accepted as correct, this Court is of the view that
on conjoint reading of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of
2010, the Scheme of 2014 and the Rules of 2014, indisputably
shows that the enactment, the Scheme and the Rules is right
based relating to housing. It has independently recognized a
right and defined the right of the unauthorized occupants, who
are residing in the area of 400 acres on the western side of
Ashiyana - Digha Road.
51. The contention of learned amicus curiae that
right to adequate housing is enumerated in the Digha Land
Settlement Scheme in favour of unauthorized occupants in the
area of 400 acres on the western side of Ashiyana-Digha road is
accepted as correct. A bare perusal of the provisions of the
statutory enactment and the Scheme reflects that the right to
adequate housing can be understood as a guarantee of certain
freedoms and the entitlements in favour of unauthorized
occupants residing in 400 acres of land situated on the western
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
side of the Ahiyana-Digha road, such as to live in the earmarked
portion by the Housing Board, free from arbitrary interference
and arbitrary demolition of one's house. Adequate housing as
provided under the Scheme to the unauthorized occupants is not
merely a shelter in form of four walls and roof but also includes
fundamental elements necessary for unauthorized occupants of
the locality to live with peace and safety.
52. In the case of Millennium Educational
Trust vs. State of Karnataka reported in I.L.R. 2013 Karnatka.
1452, the Karnataka High Court in paragraph no.12 has held as
under:-
"12. In the case of Chameli Singh V. State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in (1996) 2 SCC 549, it
is observed thus:
"8. In any organised society, right to live as
a human being is not ensured by meeting
only the animal needs of man. It is
secured only when he is assured of all
facilities to develop himself and is freed
from restrictions which inhibit his
growth. All human rights are designed to
achieve this object. Right to live
guaranteed in any civilised society
implies the right to food, water, decent
environment, education, medical care
and shelter. These are basic human
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
rights known to any civilised society. All
civil, political, social and cultural rights
enshrined in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and Convention or
under the Constitution of India cannot
be exercised without these basic human
rights. Shelter for a human being,
therefore, is not a mere protection of his
life and limb. It is home where he has
opportunities to grow physically,
mentally, intellectually and spiritually.
Right to shelter, therefore, includes
adequate living space, safe and decent
structure, clean and decent
surroundings, sufficient light, pure air
and water, electricity, sanitation and
other civic amenities like roads etc. so
as to have easy access to his daily
avocation. The right to shelter, therefore,
does not mean a mere right to a roof
over one's head but right to all the
infrastructure necessary to enable them
to live and develop as a human being.
Right to shelter when used as an
essential requisite to the right to live
should be deemed to have been
guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is
enjoined in the Directive Principles, the
State should be deemed to be under an
obligation to secure it for its citizens, of
course subject to its economic
budgeting. In a democratic society as a
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
member of the organised civic
community one should have permanent
shelter so as to physically, mentally and
intellectually equip oneself to improve
his excellence as a useful citizen as
enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and
to be a useful citizen and equal
participant in democracy. The ultimate
object of making a man equipped with a
right to dignity of person and equality of
status is to enable him to develop
himself into a cultured being. Want of
decent residence, therefore, frustrates
the very object of the constitutional
animation of right to equality, economic
justice, fundamental right to residence,
dignity of person and right to live itself.
To bring the Dalits and Tribes into the
mainstream of national life, providing
these facilities and opportunities to them
is the duty of the State as fundamental to
their basic human and constitutional
rights."
53. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been
observed that shelter for a human being is not a mere protection
of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to
grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. It has
also been observed in the aforesaid judgment that right to shelter
includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water,
electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so
as to have easy access to his daily avocation and the right to
shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over
one's head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable
them to live and develop as a human being.
54. In Pearless Tea and Industries Limited vs.
State of Tripura & Ors. reported in MANU/TR/0147/2015, the
Gauwahati High Court relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tukuram Kana Joshi & Others
vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation &
Others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353, in which it has been held
that the right to property is now considered to be not only a
constitutional or a statutory right but, also a human right though
it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental
right. Human rights are considered to be in realm of individual
rights, such as the right to health, the right to livelihood, the
right to shelter and employment etc. Now however, human
rights are gaining an even greater multi-faceted dimension. The
right to property is considered very much to be a part of such
new dimension.
55. Thus, the Digha Land Settlement Scheme,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
2014 was to be implemented and executed by the State
authorities as they are considered as a part of the statutory
mandate under the enactment of 2010 Act and the State is under
obligation to act.
56. From the materials on record, the picture that
emerges is that the writ petitioners started living in the land
situated at Nepali Nagar locality over a period of almost two
decades. In one case, the writ petitioner is residing for over a
period of almost three decades. If the State Government would
have paid attention at the right time and in the right direction
then the situation, as highlighted before this Court in the present
litigation, could have been averted. There can be no denial to the
fact that everyone has the right to adequate standard of living,
health and well-being for himself as well as his family including
fooding, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary services.
The protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India encompasses within its ambit the right to
shelter. The preamble of the Constitution of India ensures social
and economic justice and equality of status to every citizen so as
to fasten fraternity amongst all the sections of the society in the
country. Right to shelter is an inseparable component of
meaningful right to life. There need not be any debate on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
question whether the right to residence and settlement is a
fundamental right under Article 19(i)(e) of the Constitution of
India and is inseparable meaningful right to life under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. The answer has to be in affirmative.
57. In the present cases, the State has undertaken
as an obligation to provide permanent residence (flats) in the
earmarked area of proposed township, which must be be held to
be a well thought strategy to settle unauthorized occupants.
However, this Court is not at all impressed with the submission
made on behalf of the State and the Housing Board that the writ
petitioners are encroachers and they in no way can enforce the
right to shelter for the purpose of protecting their unlawful
possession. This Court in the preceding paragraphs has held that
writ petitioners are not encroachers as they have a right to
permanent residence being both; statutory as well as human
right, which is to be enforced under the Constitution of India.
Having realized this, the State Government has come up with
the enactment of 2010 and framed the Scheme and the Rule for
the allotment of permanent residence (flats) to the unauthorized
occupants settled in the area of 400 acres on the western side of
the Ashiyana-Digha Road.
58. It has been argued by learned amicus curiae
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
that the statutory enactment of 2010 should be construed as
ameliorative and beneficial statute. He also argued that the
Scheme has been framed under the statutory enactment of 2010.
The Scheme of 2014 should also be construed as beneficial. This
Court is of the view that in order to resolve the conflict between
the residents of Nepali Nagar locality and the State Government,
the Digha Land Settlement Act was enacted in the year 2010.
The scheme was framed to settle the residents of Nepali Nagar.
The covenents in the scheme and the provisions of the statute
have to be treated as beneficial statute and it cannot be subjected
to a strict interpretation.
59. So far as the purpose of the scheme is
concerned, it is clear that the State Government intended to
provide permanent residence (flats) in the earmarked area of
proposed township to the unauthorized occupants of the area of
400 acres on the western side of Ashiyana - Digha road.
60. It is well settled law that whenever such a
beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own, the Court cannot
travel beyond the scheme of the legislation and extend the scope
of the statute to anyone on the pretext of extending the statutory
benefits to those who are not covered by the scheme of
legislation. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
India in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance
Corporation, Trichur vs. Ramanuja Match Industries reported
in (1985) 1 SCC 218, Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant vs.
The Deputy Director, ESI Corporation and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC
61, Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRS. And Others vs.
S. Ventareddy (Dead) Through LRS. & Others reported in
(2010) 1 SCC 756, Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs. Mallikarjun &
Ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 1 and Union of India & Others
vs. Nitdip Textile Processor Private Limited & Private Limited
& Another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 226 supports the aforesaid
legal proposition. What can be gathered from the aforesaid
decisions is that the scheme of beneficial legislation has to be
respected and cannot be allowed to be overridden by anyone far
less than the State. A beneficial legislation must receive a liberal
construction so far as it promotes its objects. The observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (7 Judges Bench)
in the case of Pathuman & Others vs. State of Kerala & Others
reported in AIR 1978 SC 771 is quite apposite. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid decision reads as under.
"...Courts interpret the constitutional
provisions against the social setting of
the country so as to show a complete
consciousness and deep awareness of the
growing requirements of the society, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
increasing needs of the nation, the
burning problems of the day and the
complex issues facing the people which
the legislature in its wisdom, through
beneficial legislation, seeks to solve. The
judicial approach should be dynamic
rather than static, pragmatic and not
pedantic and elastic rather than rigid..."
ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF THE CUT OFF DATE
61. The Housing Board in its second
supplementary counter affidavit dated 25.07.2022 sworn by Sri
Vijay Kumar, Superintending Engineer has asserted that the cut
off date to receive ex gratia payment by the persons residing in
the area of about 400 acres stands extended till 31.05.2018. The
relevant paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the second supplementary
counter affidavit are quoted hereinbelow:-
"7. That though the Act was notified in the
official gazette on 26th of April, 2010, in
Section 1(2) of the Act it is provided that
it shall come into force on such date as
the Government may notify. The said Act
was notified on 27th of November, 2013.
After notification of the Act the Board
with the approval of the State
Government formulated a scheme
providing for procedure and modalities to
confer benefit enshrined under the Act in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
respect of both class of occupants i.e. 600
Acres and 400 Acres. After the
publication of the scheme, the Board on
11th September, 2014 published in daily
newspaper notifying the salient features
of the scheme. The Board notified the
procedure for calculating ex-gratia in
respect of the claimants under 400 Acres
category. The same was explained
through the notice published in the
newspaper on 11th September, 2014. The
Secretary of Urban Development and
Housing Department issued a notice
published in the daily newspaper on
24.09.2014. The said notice was in
reference to the notice published by the
Board on 11/12.09.2014. In the said
notice it was notified that all willing
stake holders to make application in
requisite form within 60 days from the
publication of notice on 11/12.09.2014
and latest by 8th of November to apply in
requisite form. Subsequently the cut-off
date was extended from time to time and
last extension was granted up till
30.03.2015/31.05.2018. The notice fixing
30.03.2015 at the cut-off date was
published and circulated through
newspaper on 26.03.2015.
8. That, however despite affording sufficient
opportunity to stake holders,
unauthorized occupants occupying piece
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
of land, came to lodge their claim and the
number of such claimants is very
miniscule. Up till cut-off date 30.03.2015,
150 applicants submitted their claim in
Form-B of the scheme. The Board
however has facilitated benefit of the
scheme and kept on extending the cut-off
date and the same was extended up till
31.05.2018 through notice published in
daily newspaper dated 28.04.2018. After
extension 185 more applicants were
received all in Form-B. It may be
mentioned that so far Form-A is
concerned in all 93 application were
received."
62. From reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of
the second supplementary counter affidavit, it is clear that the
cut off date was fixed as 31.05.2018 for getting the benefits
under the Scheme. The cut off date has not been challenged by
the writ petitioners and therefore, this Court is also bound by the
cut off date fixed by the Housing Board. Moreover, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a number of decisions, with regard to cut off
date, has held that the fixation of the cut off date is within the
domain of the Executives and normally the Court should not
interfere with the same unless it appears that the same has been
fixed arbitrarily and indiscriminately. For fixing the cut off date,
the consideration for the executive authorities can be financial,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
administrative or there may be other considerations. The Court
must exercise judicial restraint and ordinarily leave it to the
wisdom of the executive authorities to fix the cut off date.
63. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club &
Another vs. Chander Hass & Another reported in (2008) 1
SCC 683 and in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh &
Others vs. P. Lakshmi Devi (Smt.) reported in (2008) 4 SCC
720 that the Court must maintain judicial restraint in matter of
executive domain and therefore, this Court is of the view that
once the executive has fixed the cut off date i.e. 31.05.2018 for
grant of benefit to the eligible persons for providing alternative
allotment by way of permanent residence (flats) to the residents
of the locality within 400 acres of land situated in the western
side of Ashiyana -Digha road, this Court should not interfere
with the same.
64. The second supplementary counter affidavit
does not address, however, the fate of all the writ petitioners
who have been residing in the said area prior to 31.05.2018. Can
the persons who are said to be residing in the area of 400 acres
before the cut off date i.e. 31.05.2018 be denied the benefit of
right of permanent residence as enjoined under the Digha Land
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Settlement Scheme, 2014? This Court is of the considered view
that extending benefits to the writ petitioners for permanent
residence (flats) in the earmarked area of proposed township is
legally justifiable. The interpretation of the beneficial legislation
and the clauses of the settlement scheme should be in
consonance with social justice against the hair-splitting
interpretation based on blind law and this Court holds that all
the unauthorized occupants of the area residing under 400 acre
of land of Nepali Nagar before the cut off date are also eligible
to be considered for beneficial benefits of permanent residence
(flats) i.e. if any person is an unauthorized occupant of that area
and he has been residing as an unauthorized occupant before the
cut off date i.e. 31.05.2018 he should also get the benefit of
permanent residence (flats) as per Clause 3.2 of the Digha Land
Settlement Scheme, 2014.
65. This is in view of of the fact that it is the
authorities who for the last 30 years have been allowing
unauthorized occupancy in the said area of 400 acres of land and
it was right under their nose that people have been constructing
their houses and therefore, they are eligible to get permanent
residence (flats) as per Clause 3.2 of the Digha Land Settlement
Scheme of 2014.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
ISSUE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
66. It has been argued by learned senior counsel
for the writ petitioners that the State is bound to keep up with its
promise flowing from the Scheme keeping in view of the
legitimate expectation of the residents in the area of 400 acres
situated on the western side of the Ashiyana-Digha Road.
67. Learned amicus curiae has also argued that
failure to implement the scheme in the letter and spirit is serious
violation of the statutory right of the petitioners guaranteed
under the Settlement Scheme of 2014.
68. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
State and the Housing Board have argued that plea of the
petitioners for invocation of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation is untenable since it cannot be claimed against the
State.
69. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was
first developed in England in English Law as a ground for
judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or
substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a
representation made to a person or a class of persons. It is based
on the principles of natural justice and fairness and seeks to
prevent authorities from abusing power. The Courts in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
United Kingdom have recognized both; procedural and
substantive legitimate expectations. The procedural legitimate
expectation rest on the presumption that a public authority will
follow a certain procedure in advance when a decision being
taken, while a substantive legitimate expectation arises where an
authority makes a lawful representation that an individual will
receive or continue to receive some kind of substantive benefits.
The doctrine of legitimate expectations is one amongst several
tools incorporated by the Court to review administrative action
taken by the public authorities. This doctrine pertains to the
relationship between individual and a public authority.
According to this doctrine, the public authority can be made
accountable in lieu of legitimate expectation.
70. So far as the present case is concerned, a
sanction has been issued by the State Government to provide
permanent residence (flats) in the earmarked area to the
unauthorized occupants residing in the area of 400 acres on the
western side of Ashiyana-Digha road. This sanction has entitled
the writ petitioners with legitimate expectation and the matter of
allotment of permanent residence (flats). The duty is to act fairly
on the part of the public authorities entitles every writ petitioner
to have legitimate expectation to be treated in a fair manner and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
it is imperative to give due importance to such an expectation in
order to satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness in State
action and therefore, there is violation of the principles of
legitimate expectation.
ISSUE OF LEGALITY AND VALIDITY
OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 25.04.2022 & THE ORDER
DATED 20.06.2022.
71. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned amicus curiae that the show-cause
notice is mere empty formality. In this case, the Government has
not complied with the substantive due process standard.
72. The importance of a show-cause has been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma
Nath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40, and it has been held that notice is
the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and
unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the
case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be
adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the
absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity,
the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but
essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
any adverse order is passed against him. Any encroachment on
public land can be removed only in accordance with procedure
prescribed under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act,
1956. The procedure for removal of the encroachment on public
land has been prescribed in Sections 3 to 6 of the Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act, 1956, which read as under:-
"3. Initiation of the proceedings:-
1(1) If it appears to the Collector from an
application made by any person or upon
information received from any sources
that any person has made or is
responsible for the continuance of any
encroachment upon any public land, the
Collector may cause to be served upon
such person a notice in the prescribed
form requiring him to appear on a date
which shall not be less than two weeks
from the date of service of notice to show
cause:--
(a) Why he should not be restrained from
making such encroachment by issue of
injunctions; or
(b) Why such encroachment should not be
removed.
(2) Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) the
Collector shall have power to issue
temporary injunction at any stage to
restrain such encroachment till the
disposal of the proceeding or till further
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
orders or he may pass such orders as he
deems proper for preventing such
encroachment:
Provided that where the
encroachment on public land is in the
nature of exposure of articles for sale, or
opening temporary booth for vending, the
Collector may without the formality of
issuing a notice as required under sub-
section (1) order for its immediate
removal or cause it to be removed
immediately and for the purpose he may
use such force as is necessary in the case:
Provided further that where the
encroachment on public land is of such a
nature as the Collector considers its
immediate removal essential for the
safety of general public or for the safety
of any other structure on the public land
and the notice cannot be served without
unnecessary delay upon the person
responsible for the encroachment or his
representative owing to his absence or
for any other reason, he may order the
removal of encroachment or if necessary
cause it to be removed immediately and
may use such force for the purpose as is
necessary.
(3) If the person who has made or is
responsible for the continuance of the
encroachment is not known or cannot be
found, the Collector may cause notice to
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
be affixed in the neighbourhood of the
alleged encroachment requiring any
person interested in the same to show
cause by the date specified in the notice
why the encroachment should not be
removed and it shall not be necessary to
name any person in such notice.
1. Substituted by Act 3 of 1982.
4. Defence :-
Any person on whom notice is served
under Section 3 or any person interested
in the encroachment may appear before
the Collector and raise any defence
which he could have raised if he was a
defendant in a properly framed suit for
the removal of the encroachment.
5. Hearing:-
On the date specified in the notice served
under section 3, the matter shall be
heard, unless the hearing is adjourned by
the Collector to a future day, and the
Collector shall hear the applicant if any,
the person on whom the notice has been
served and any other person who may be
interested either in the encroachment or
in the removal thereof and take such
other evidence as may be adduced in that
behalf:
Provided that, if the person on
whom notice has been served under
section 3 or any other person interested
in the encroachment, fails to appear and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
show cause on the date specified in the
notice, or any other date to which the
hearing may be adjourned, the matter
shall be heard, ex-parte.
6. Final order of the Collector:-
1[(1) In all cases not covered by the
provisos to sub-section (2) of section 3,
the Collector shall after hearing the
persons concerned and taking evidence,
if any under section 5 and after making
such enquiry as he deems necessary the
Collector may, as the circumstances of
the case requires--
(a) either drop the proceeding, or
(b) make the temporary injunction issued
under sub-clause (a) of subsection (1) of
section 3 absolute against the person
making encroachment of the public land,
or
(c) if any person who together with his
homestead does not own more than 5
acres of land, has encroachment up to 10
dec. of public land continuous to his
agricultural holding and has used the
encroached public land for agricultural
purposes. The Collector shall order the
settlement of such public land with such
person on payment of rent and damages
for the use of this land. The amount of
damages and rent shall be calculated by
considering the rent payable in case of
similar land in the neighbourhood. Where
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
no rent is payable the rent and damages
for the encroached public land shall be
calculated on the basis of such fair rent
as the Collector may deem proper, or
(d) where the temporary encroachment on
public land has been removed by the
person making encroachment after some
time the Collector shall order payment of
damages for the use of the land during
the period of encroachment. The amount
of damages shall be calculated according
to the prescribed procedure, or
(e) in the cases not covered by the foregoing
sub-clauses, the Collector shall direct the
person making encroachment of the
public land to remove the encroachment
within specified period which shall not in
any case be more than two weeks in case
the encroachment is not removed within
the specified time the crops standing or
all types of structures existing on the
encroached land shall be forfeited by the
Collector;
Provided if any landless person
encroached up to 12 1/2 dec. of public
land before the 10th October 1955, no
action shall be taken against him under
this Act.
Explanation.-- In this proviso landless
person means a person whose source of
livelihood is agricultural or agricultural
labour and who either does not possess
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
any land or does not possess more than
one acre of land.
2["(2) If any person does not comply with the
orders passed by the Collector under this
section, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term, which may
extend to one year or with fine up to Rs.
20,000/- (twenty thousand) or with both."
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
the offence under this section shall be
cognizable.
1. Substituted by Act 3 of 1982.
2. Substituted by Act 17 of 2012.
6A. Power of the State Government to
compound the proceeding under the
Act :-
The State Government or any officer
specially authorised by the State
Government in this behalf not below the
rank of an Additional Collector, may
compound the offences arising out of any
proceeding under the Act on such terms
and conditions as the State Government
may determine."
73. Section-3 of the aforesaid act gives power to
the Collector to give notice to a person who has encroached on a
public land. Section 4 of the aforesaid Act provides that any
person on whom notice has been served under Section 3 or any
person interested in the encroachment may appear before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Collector and take any defence which he could have taken if he
was a defendant in a properly framed suit for the removal of the
encroachment. Section-5 of the aforesaid act makes a provision
of hearing and the Collector is duty bound to take evidence
adduced by the parties in course of the proceeding and to hear
the parties before passing the final order. Section-6 of the
aforesaid act provides the manner in which the Collector can
pass final order in a proceeding initiated under Section 3 of the
Act.
74. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions
shows that a detailed procedure for removal of encroachment
has been prescribed in the said Act. In the present case, a general
notice for removal of encroachment was issued. Moreover, the
general notice has not been issued in proper format as given in
the aforesaid Act. It is also important to note that in almost all
the relevant provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment
Act, the word "Service of Notice" has been used and therefore,
issuance of notice in the aforesaid Act is not sufficient rather, the
service of aforesaid notice is essential before proceeding in the
matter and passing final order under the aforesaid Act.
75. Admittedly, in the present case, neither any
individual notice was issued or served nor the public notice was
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
pasted on the wall accompanying with the signature of two
witnesses as prescribed in the aforesaid Act. Further, the
opportunity of hearing was not given to the affected persons. In
the case of Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and
Others 1999 (8) SCC 266 a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that it is a well-settled salutary principle
that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular
manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other
manner.
76. In Chief Information Commissioner & Anr.
vs. State of Manipur & Anr. reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1 it has
been held that it is well known when a procedure is laid down
statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory
procedure, the Court should not, in the name of interpretation,
lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory
provision. This principle has been followed by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King
Emperor reported in AIR 1936 Privy Council 253(2), in the
case of Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1961
SC 1527 and also in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Singhara Singh & Others reported in AIR 1964 SC 358.
77. In the case of State through P.S. Lodhi
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda reported in (2012) 8
SCC 450, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is a settled
principle of law that if something is required to be done in a
particular manner, then that has to be done only in that way or
not, at all. In the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor
(supra) it has been held that the rule which applies is a different
and not less well recognized rule, namely, that where a power is
given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be
done in that way or not at all.
78. In J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that there is an un-controverted legal
principle that when the statute provides for a particular
procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be
permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words,
where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way,
the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all.
Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and
necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is
based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius",
meaning thereby, that if a statute provides for a thing to be done
in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
no other manner and following any other course is not
permissible.
79. In the case of Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Anr. vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 32 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that one of the essential
ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with
a proper notice i.e. a person has a right to notice. Notice should
be clear and precise so as to give the other party adequate
information of the case he has to meet and make an effective
defence. Denial of notice and opportunity to respond result in
making the administrative decision vitiated. The adequacy of
notice is a relative term and must be decided with reference to
each case. But generally a notice to be adequate must contain
the following: (a) time, place and nature of hearing; (b) legal
authority under which hearing is to be held; (c) statement of
specific charges which a person has to meet.
80. In the present case, there is violation of
principle of natural justice. Therefore, the contention of learned
senior counsel for the petitioners and learned amicus curiae
merits acceptance as there is failure to comply with the
procedure prescribed under the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, 1956 and it leads to specific consequence of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
eviction. The State Government was in hurry and has not given
any chance to the petitioners to prefer appeals against the order
dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Circle Officer in Encroachment
Case No. 70 of 2021-22. The provision of appeal is not mere a
formality under the Act and the authorities cannot be allowed to
act in such a hurried manner like a private litigant and in such a
manner so that petitioners do not have any right of appeal. It is
an admitted fact that to deny the right of appeal, the demolition
was carried on 02.07.2022 and 03.07.2022 i.e. on Saturday and
Sunday.
81. In view of the above facts, the notice dated
25.04.2022 and the order dated 20.06.2022 passed in
Encroachment Case No. 70 of 2021-22 are hereby quashed and
set aside as the entire proceeding has been conducted without
following the procedure as provided under the Act and the State
should not have acted upon the orders passed under the said
proceeding. Moreover, the Bihar Public Land Encroachment
Act, 1956 provides for appeal against the order the Circle
Officer.
ISSUE OF DEMOLITION.
82. The exercise of demolition was carried by
the authorities of the State on 02.07.2022 and 03.07.2022
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
without considering all the options with the State Government to
provide permanent residence (flats) in the earmarked area of
proposed township to be constructed by the Board, is
unreasonable, unjust and unfair. It is in violation of the due
process of the law. It has been brought to the notice of this Court
that the Patna District Administration and police personnel
reached the venue with bulldozers and poclain machines/
vehicle to demolish the alleged illegal structures on the second
day of anti-encroachment drive. It has been stated at Bar that 95
constructed structures had been demolished on 02.07.2022 and
03.07.2022 and an area of about 50 acres has been taken over by
the district administration. Further, when the final order was
passed ordering for demolition of houses under the Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act, 1956, the petitioners ought to have
given some time for vacating the lands in question and/or for
making alternative arrangement. The demolition exercise of the
State authorities on the basis of an illegal order passed in a
proceeding in which the provisions of law including the service
of notice etc. was not at all followed, was illegal. The punitive
bulldozer demolition was blatantly illegal, unconstitutional and
unauthorized and cannot be permitted in a State governed by the
rule of law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
83. From the above discussions and the facts of
the case, the picture which emerges is that for the last 30 years
when the Housing Board has been in possession of the area of
400 acres in Nepali Nagar, illegal constructions have been
allowed to be made. This has happened right under the nose of
the State including the Bihar State Housing Board and the
Rajeev Nagar Police Station. The State has chosen to demolish
the so-called illegal constructions of unauthorized occupants but
the State has been silent as to the action taken against its own
officials who were there to safeguard the interest of the State.
Not even a whisper has been made in the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the State and the Housing Board as to what action
has been taken against the officials of the Housing Board and
the Police officials of Rajeev Nagar Police Station for allowing
the residents to make construction over the said land. This
inaction on the part of the State Government against its own
officials and police personnel emboldens them not to obey the
law for extraneous reasons. It is for the State Government to
take a decision as to what action should be taken against its own
officials i.e. civil and police officials including the officials of
the Bihar State Housing Board responsible for their dereliction
of duties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
DIRECTIONS
84. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court
directs the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to enquire into
the matter and find out the name(s) of the delinquent officials
including the police officials, who have not performed their
duties and have been involved in the dereliction of their official
duties and after finding out the name(s), he will recommend as
to the suitable action to be taken against them in accordance
with law.
84.1. This exercise must be completed by the
Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, within six months from
today and a report be filed in this Court about the action taken
against such erring officials.
84.2. So far as the compensation claimed by the
affected persons, whose houses have been demolished by the
State authorities on the basis of an illegal proceeding in the most
arbitrary manner is concerned, this Court is of the view that all
the petitioners whose houses have been demolished without
considering their cases individually are entitled to interim
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) each. The
writ petitioners/occupants can file their claim for damages in an
appropriate forum/authority/court. If such claims are filed before
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
such an authority, the same must be decided by the concerned
authority/Court within a reasonable period preferably within one
year of its filing after proceeding with the hearing of the case on
day-to-day basis and after hearing all the parties. If the writ
petitioners/occupants are found to be entitled for more
compensation than what has been awarded as an interim
compensation by this Court, the same shall be disbursed to them
after deducting the interim compensation from the final
compensation amount.
84.3. The petitioners whose houses have been
demolished cannot be evicted from the land on which they have
constructed their houses unless and until they are provided
permanent residence (flats) as envisaged under Clause 3.2 of the
Digha Land Settlement Scheme, 2014 as well as the final
compensation as directed in preceding paragraph.
84.4. It is also directed that if the State wants to
decide the fate of the writ petitioners then they have to be heard
individually in accordance with law under the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, 1956. Further, if the State wants to evict the
residents of Nepali Nagar then the State is bound to follow the
Digha Land Settlement Act, 2010, Digha Land Settlement
Scheme, 2014 and the Digha Land Settlement Rules, 2014.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2022 dt.25-05-2023
84.5. It has been reported that those who have
applied for ex gratia amount under the Digha Land Settlement
Scheme, 2014 are being kept in limbo by the Housing Board and
no decision has been taken by the Housing Board. If that be so,
the Housing Board is directed to take a decision on all pending
applications filed under the Digha Land Settlement Scheme,
2014 for ex gratia amount within one month from today.
85. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, these writ petitions stand allowed.
86. Before parting, I must place on record my
appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Sri Santosh
Kumar and Sri Viswas Vijeta, as amicus curiae.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 17.11.2022
Uploading Date 25.05.2023
Transmission Date
