Mirza Jalaluddin Beg @ Jalalludin ... vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5232 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11443 of 2023
     ======================================================

Mirza Jalaluddin Beg @ Jalalludin Beg Son of Mirza Alauddin Beg Resident of Village-Sikandra, Post officer-Sikandra, Police Station-Sikandra, District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Bihar

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Jamui.

4. The District Magistrate, Jamui.

5. The Additional Distirct Magistrate, Jamui.

6. The Additional Collector, Revenue, Jamui.

7. The Circle Officer, Anchal Sikandra, Police Station-Sikandra, District-

Jamui.

8. Azhar Siddique Son of Late Hasan Imam Resident of Village-Sikandra, Post Office-Sikandra, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Jamui.

9. Hassan Siddique Resident of Village-Sikandra, Post Office-Sikandra, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Jamui.

10. Athar Siddique Resident of Village-Sikandra, Post Office-Sikandra, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Jamui.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr.Abdul Wadood, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sajid Salim Khan ( SC-25 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 09-10-2023

The writ petition is filed as a Public Interest

Litigation, seeking directions to the District Magistrate, Jamui

for removing encroachment from Plot No. 2234, 2292 and 2224

of Khata No. 454. It is stated that these plots are mentioned as Patna High Court CWJC No.11443 of 2023 dt.09-10-2023

house and Kachhari in Khatiyan, which belong to Government

of Bihar but the set of respondents arrayed as 8, 9 and 10 have

encroached upon the same. It is also pointed out that by CWJC

No. 13455 of 2016, the petitioner himself has approached this

court for removal of encroachment from the very same

properties which was disposed of by directing the District

Magistrate, Jamui to act in accordance with law, as per the

observations made in Sanjay Jha v. State of Bihar, 2015 SCC

OnLine Pat 9426. The the party respondents had filed review in

which it was contended that they were not encroachers and were

title holders. It was clarified that there is no finding in the

judgment under review that the review petitioners were

encroachers. It was clarified that the District Magistrate, Jamui

would consider the factum of encroachment only after hearing

the review petitioners also and pass a speaking order again in

accordance with the observations in Sanjay Jha (supra). The

review petition was dismissed even after the same, nothing has

been done by the District Magistrate is the contention raised.

2. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of

Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 asserting that the writ petition is not

maintainable, especially in view of the earlier proceedings taken

by the very same petitioners for removal of encroachment from Patna High Court CWJC No.11443 of 2023 dt.09-10-2023

the very same property. It is also specifically alleged that the

petitioner is an interested person, since his father had filed a

partition suit for the subject land which is pending as Title Suit

No. 38 of 1986, Mirza Alaluddin Beg v. Navav Majhar

Siddiqui. In fact it is pointed out that after the judgment in

CWJC No. 13455 of 2016, the District Collector had considered

the issue and rejected the claim of the petitioner by Annexure-A,

finding the claim to be not unsustainable, especially when a title

suit is pending in the matter and there is no discomfort to the

public, warranting invocation of Section 133 of the Cr.P.C.

Annexure-A has been passed on 15.09.2023 before which the

writ petition was filed. However, we have to notice that the

petitioner has not disclosed his interest in the writ petition nor

has he spoken of the title suit which his own father filed before

the Civil Court.

3. We find no reason to entertain the Public Interest

Litigation and find that the petitioner has attempted to canvas

his personal interest in the Public Interest Litigation. The

petitioner has attempted to further the case of this father before

the Civil Court by attempting eviction of the party respondents,

alleging that they are rank encroachers. Even, if they are

encroachers the proper remedy is under the Bihar Land Patna High Court CWJC No.11443 of 2023 dt.09-10-2023

Encroachment Act, 1956 (for brevity "Act"). In the

circumstance of the pending civil suit, even an application for

removal of encroachment under the Act would not lie and we

find the Public Interest Litigation to be a clear abuse of process

of law.

4. We hence, dismiss the writ petition with a cost of

Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to the Bihar State Legal

Services Authority within a period of 1 month failing which the

authority would be entitled to recover it as per the procedure for

recovery of 'arrears due on land revenue'.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Rajiv Roy, J) Anushka/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          13.10.2023
Transmission Date