Patna High Court
Rabindra Kumar Singh @ Ravindra Kumar ... vs The State Of Bihar on 19 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15778 of 2023
======================================================
Rabindra Kumar Singh @ Ravindra Kumar Singh Son of Shri Ram Charitra
Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Shantar, Ward No. 13, Purani Bazar,
Lakhisarai under Lakhisarai Municipality Area, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District-
Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Govt. of BIhar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt.
of BIhar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai.
6. The Circle Officer, Lakhisarai.
7. The Executive Officer, Lakhisarai Municipality, Lakhisarai.
8. Sidheshwar Singh, Son of Late Yugal Kishore Prasad Singh, Resident of
Village- Jhinaura, P.S.- Lakhisarai, Presently Residing at Mohalla- Shantar,
Ward No. 07, P.S.- Lakhisarai and District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabi Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Upendra Prasad Singh, AC to SC-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 19-01-2024
The petitioner claims that he has been
relentlessly pursuing action against the encroachment of a
public road and that there is no personal interest in the matter.
2. The petitioner had approached this Court
with C.W.J.C. No. 817 of 1998, which was disposed of by
Patna High Court CWJC No.15778 of 2023 dt.19-01-2024
2/4
Annexure-1 judgment directing the petitioner therein, who is the
petitioner herein also to approach the authority under the
provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956
(for brevity, the Act).
3. Later yet another writ petition was filed as
C.W.J.C. No. 20403 of 2012 titled as Rabindra Kumar Singh
v. The State of Bihar & Ors., wherein it was claimed that the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai has passed an order for
removal of encroachment, which had to be executed. It was
alleged that despite passage of three years, the encroachment
was not removed. There was a direction to comply with the
order in the aforesaid writ petition.
4. When the authority proceeded with the
matter, the 5th respondent herein; who was the party respondent
in the earlier writ petitions also filed C.W.J.C. No. 191 of 2013
titled as Sidheshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors., the
judgment in which is produced as Annexure-P/6.
5. The respondent, who was the petitioner
therein was relegated to the appellate remedy. Yet another writ
petition was filed as C.W.J.C. No. 12639 of 2015 titled as
Rabindra Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors., by the
petitioner herein which was disposed of by Exurban-P/7. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.15778 of 2023 dt.19-01-2024
3/4
contention therein was that the appeal filed by the respondent
based on the liberty reserved to him in Annexure-P/6 was not
maintainable. The Division Bench which considered C.W.J.C.
No. 12639 of 2015 refused to go into the question of
maintainability of the appeal and directed early disposal of the
same.
6. Then again a contempt case being M.J.C.
No. 584 of 2017 titled as Rabindra Kumar Singh v. The State
of Bihar & Ors. was filed by the petitioner, which was also
disposed of by Annexure-P/8. The contempt case was filed
purportedly for non-compliance of the judgment at
Annexure-P/7, which directed the early disposal of the appeal. It
was noticed that the appeal was disposed of and the direction
issued by the Court was complied with.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
State. admitting the various proceedings and also the factum of
eviction having been ordered under the Act. It is stated that the
Executive Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai
had on two different occasions carried out the measurement of
the property by the amin and the anchal amin from which
measurements it was reiterated that there was there was in fact
an encroachment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15778 of 2023 dt.19-01-2024
4/4
8. The appeal filed by the 8th respondent is said
to have been dismissed for non-prosecution but later restored to
the file of the Appellate Authority. It is also stated that on
06.05.2022
, the deponent, who had signed the affidavit on
behalf of the State had appeared before the Tribunal. It is also
submitted that on 26.03.2022 from the order-sheet, it appears
that the petitioner though did not appear on the said date had
sent a reply through registered post. The petitioner hence was
aware of the pending appeal and in that circumstances, the
public interest litigation filed later to that date is misconceived.
9. We find absolutely no reason to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and dismiss the writ petition.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 23.01.2024.
Transmission Date
