Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 12 August, 2024
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.395 of 2024
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Singh Son of Rajendra Singh Resident of Allauddinchak, P.O.
and Police Station- Punpun, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Second Appellate Authority, Patna.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
4. The Additional District Magistrate, Masaurhi, Patna.
5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Masaurhi, Patna.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patna.
7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Masaurhi.
8. The Circle Officer, Punpun.
9. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Officer, Masaurhi, District- Patna.
10. The Station House Officer, Punpun Police Station, District- Patna.
11. Vikram Kumar, @ Vikram Singh, Son of N/A, Resident of Village- Akauna,
Post Office-Punpun, Police Station- Punpun, District -Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pravashankar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, GA-2
Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, JC to GA-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 12-08-2024
The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the orders dated 10.11.2023 and
23.12.2023
, passed by the District Magistrate-cum-
Second Appellate Authority, Patna in Second
Appeal No. 428118028092203512/2A, whereby and
whereunder the Circle Officer, Punpun has been
directed to ensure that the land in question is made
Patna High Court CWJC No.395 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024
free from encroachment.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the
petitioner, are that the petitioner purchased a land
appertaining to Khata No.166, Survey Khesra No.
839, Thana No.57, situated at Mauja-Manorah from
one Sarojani Devi, by means of a sale deed bearing
sale deed no. 6528 dated 04.09.2020, registered
under the District Registry Office, Patna. In fact, the
petitioner also claims to be a bonafide owner of a
part of the land, appertaining to Khata No.133,
Khesra No. 842, Thana No.57, situated at Mauja-
Manorah and 2.171 decimal land thereof, has been
stated to have been mutated in the name of the
petitioner as also Jamabandi No. 61 is existing in
his name.
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that one Vikram Kumar is stated
to have filed a complaint under the provisions of
the Bihar Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2015'), inter
alia alleging therein that encroachment has been
made over 88 decimals of land, appertaining to Plot
Patna High Court CWJC No.395 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024
No. 133, Khesra No. 842, Thana No. 57, Mauza-
Manorah, leading to filing of a second appeal, as
aforesaid, wherein the second appellate authority,
by the impugned orders dated 10.11.2023 and
23.12.2023, has directed the Circle Officer, Punpun
to remove the encroachment in question. It is
contended that neither the petitioner has ever
been informed nor communicated about the
aforesaid proceedings in question and by an ex
parte order as also behind the back of the
petitioner, the Second Appellate Authority has
directed for removal of the encroachment in
question. It is stated that the petitioner has
purchased the land in question and the same is his
raiyati land, hence there is no question of the
petitioner having made any encroachment. Another
aspect of the matter, canvassed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that under the
provision of the Act, 2015, no directions can be
issued for removal of encroachment inasmuch as in
case any encroachment has been made over the
public land/gairmajarua aam land, the same has to
Patna High Court CWJC No.395 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024
be dealt with under the provision of the Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act, 1956').
4. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for
the respondent-State and for the private
respondent no. 11 have though tried to support the
impugned orders dated 10.11.2023 and
23.12.2023, passed by the District Magistrate,
Patna-cum-Second Appellate Authority, however,
they have not been able to deny the fact that
under the garb of the Act, 2015, no complaint
pertaining to encroachment made over public/
government land can be entertained much less any
order can be passed by the concerned authority for
removal of the encroachment in question and if at
all encroachment has been made over a public
land, the same is required to be dealt with under
the provision of the Act, 1956.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record. At this
juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the definition
of "complaint" as defined under Section 2(a) of
Patna High Court CWJC No.395 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024
the Bihar Right to Public Grievance
Redressal, Act, 2015 herein below:-
"2(a)-Complaint means any
application made by a citizen or a group
of citizens to a Public Grievance
Redressal Officer for seeking any benefit
or relief relating to any schemes,
programme or services run in the State
by the State Government or in respect
of failure or delay in providing such
benefit or relief, or regarding any matter
arising out of failure in the functioning
of, or violation of any law, policy,
service, programme or scheme in force
in the State by a public authority but
does not include grievance relating to
the service matters of a public servant,
whether serving or retired, or relating to
any matter in which any Court or
Tribunal has jurisdiction or relating to
any matter under Right to Information
Act, 2005 (Central Act no. 22 of 2005) or
services notified under the Bihar Right
to Public Services Act, 2011."
6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid definition of
"complaint" would show that the authorities/
Appellate Authority under the Bihar Right to
Patna High Court CWJC No.395 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024
Public Grievance Redressal, Act, 2015 are not
empowered to entertain any complaint pertaining
to encroachment made over the public/
Government land, inasmuch as the same is
governed by the provisions contained in the Bihar
Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, hence,
the District Magistrate-cum-Second Appellate
Authority, Patna has committed a grave error by
assuming the role of an authority under the
provision of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment
Act, 1956, although he has got no jurisdiction or
power to either entertain any complaint pertaining
to encroachment or pass any order regarding
removal / demolition of the encroachment in
question, hence, on this ground alone, this Court
finds that the orders dated 10.11.2023 and
23.12.2023, passed by the District Magistrate,
Patna-cum-Second Appellate Authority in Second
Appeal No. 428118028092203512/2A are perverse,
illegal, mala fide and de hors the provisions of law,
hence, fit to be set aside.
7. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the act
Patna High Court CWJC No.395 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024
and conduct of the District Magistrate-cum-Second
Appellate Authority, Patna, in passing the aforesaid
impugned orders dated 10.11.2023 and
23.12.2023, is against the constitutional mandate,
provided for under Article 300A of the Constitution
of India, which stipulates that no person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of law.
However, in the present case, not only the District
Magistrate, Patna-cum-Second Appellate Authority
has acted beyond the authority and jurisdiction
vested in him under the provisions of the Act, 2015
but has also not bothered to adhere to the
principles of natural justice by at least issuing
notice to the petitioner, ensuring his appearance
and granting him an opportunity of hearing, before
passing the impugned orders dated 10.11.2023 and
23.12.2023. Thus, the conduct of the District
Magistrate, Patna-cum-Second Appellate Authority,
in passing the aforesaid impugned orders dated
10.11.2023 and 23.12.2023 is deprecated.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case and for the foregoing reasons, this
Patna High Court CWJC No.395 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024
Court finds that the impugned orders dated
10.11.2023 and 23.12.2023, passed by the District
Magistrate, Patna-cum-Second Appellate Authority
in Second Appeal No. 428118028092203512/2A,
are illegal, perverse, mala fide and de hors the
provision of law, hence are quashed. The writ
petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 29.08.2024
Transmission Date N/A
