Patna High Court
Parshuram Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 7 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.711 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8186 of 2023
======================================================
Parshuram Rai, Son of Late Mahesh Rai, Resident of Hanuman Nagar, P.O.-
Dharharwa, P.S. Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue & Land Reform
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Circle Officer, Aurai, District Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 07-08-2025
The present appeal is listed under the caption "For
Orders (On Office Notes)".
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
office has pointed out certain defects. However, the said defects
be ignored, and as the matter is urgent, the main matter be heard
today itself.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the defects
pointed out by the office are ignored.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025
4. The present Interlocutory Application has been
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 412 days caused in preferring the Letters Patent
Appeal.
5. Heard Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant and Mr.
Arun Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
6. We have gone through the averments made in this
Interlocutory Application and also considered the submissions
canvassed by learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
7. We are of the view that the applicant/appellant has
shown sufficient cause for not preferring the Letters Patent
Appeal within the time of limitation.
8. Accordingly, delay of 412 days caused in preferring
the Letters Patent Appeal is hereby condoned.
9. Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2025 stands
allowed.
10. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed
under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna
High Court Rules against the order dated 25.04.2024 rendered
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025
by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 8186 of 2023, whereby
the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed
by the present appellant/original petitioner by observing that the
application submitted by the appellant/original petitioner under
the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act shall be
decided by the concerned authorities by 15 th June, 2024 and
appellant/original petitioner shall not be removed till 30 th June,
2024.
11. Heard Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/original petitioner
and Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the
respondent-State.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant/original
petitioner would mainly contend that learned Single Judge gave
direction to the respondent authority to decide the
representation/application of the appellant/original petitioner
before 15th June, 2024, despite which no decision was taken by
the respondent authority, and only on 31st May, 2025, the
appellant/original petitioner was informed that his application
was already rejected in the year 2020. However, copy of the said
order has not been supplied to the appellant/original petitioner,
despite which the appellant/original petitioner has filed the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025
appeal against the said order before the appellate authority,
which is still pending. Learned counsel thereafter submitted that
now recently, i.e., on yesterday, the appellant/original petitioner
has received notice from the concerned respondent authority in
which it has been stated that as the appellant/original petitioner
is an encroacher, the encroachment will be removed. The
appellant/original petitioner has, therefore, filed the urgent note,
pursuant to which, now the matter has been listed.
13. Learned counsel submits that as per the provisions
of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, the
respondent authorities are required to give alternate land to the
homeless persons. However, as the appeal filed by the
appellant/original petitioner is pending before the appellate
authority, the respondent authorities be restrained from
removing the so-called encroachment made by the
appellant/original petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, urged
that the impugned notice issued by the respondent be stayed till
final disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant/original
petitioner before the concerned appellate authority.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents has opposed the present appeal. Learned
counsel would mainly submit that the learned Single Judge gave
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025
protection to the appellant/original petitioner up to June, 2024
by directing the respondent authorities that appellant/original
petitioner shall not be removed from the place in question up to
30th June, 2024. However, the appellant/original petitioner has
subsequently challenged the said order after a delay of 412 days.
It is further submitted that if the appellant/original petitioner
was having any grievance with regard to the non-consideration
of his representation/application, it was always open for the
appellant/original petitioner to file application under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the
concerned learned Single Judge. However, as the
appellant/original petitioner, who is an encroacher and is in
possession of the land in question, did not file any application
before this Court, and now when the respondents have pointed
out to the appellant/original petitioner that his
representation/application was rejected long back in the year
2020, he has filed the present appeal. It is further submitted that
it is not in dispute that the appellant/original petitioner is an
encroacher and now only request of the appellant/original
petitioner is that alternate land should be provided to him.
Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, urged that
present appeal may not be entertained.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025
15. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned Advocates. We have also gone through the documents
which are placed on record.
16. It transpires from the record that appellant/original
petitioner filed the captioned petition before the learned Single
Judge. Learned Single Judge has specifically given the finding
that the appellant/original petitioner is an encroacher. However,
the request was made on behalf of the appellant/original
petitioner that his application, which has been filed by him
under the Act for grant of land/alternate accommodation, is
pending before the respondent authority and, therefore, learned
Single Judge thought it fit to direct the concerned respondent to
decide the said application by 15th June, 2024. Learned Single
Judge has further granted protection to the appellant/original
petitioner up to 30th June, 2024 by observing that the respondent
authority shall not remove the appellant/original petitioner up to
30th June, 2024. Now, it is the grievance of the appellant/original
petitioner that his application was not decided by the respondent
authority and, therefore, he has waited for a period of 412 days
for filing appeal. We are of the view that if the respondent had
not decided the representation/application given by the
appellant/original petitioner before 15th June, 2024, it was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025
always open for the appellant/original petitioner to file
proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act before the learned
Single Judge who gave direction to the concerned respondent.
However, the appellant/original petitioner waited for 412 days.
Now, it is the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant/original petitioner that recently on 31st May, 2025 the
respondent has communicated to the appellant/original
petitioner that his representation was already rejected in the year
2020. We are of the view that when the
representation/application of the appellant/original petitioner
was already rejected long back, appellant/original petitioner
must be aware about the aforesaid aspect, despite which it
appears that appellant/original petitioner did not disclose the
same before the learned Single Judge when the learned Single
Judge disposed of the petition with the aforesaid direction. Even
otherwise, now it is the case of the appellant/original petitioner
that he has already filed appeal before the appellate authority
challenging the decision which has been taken by the
respondent authority in the year 2020.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the present case, when it is not in dispute that the
appellant/original petitioner is an encroacher and is in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.711 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025
possession of the land without any authority of law since long
and when the learned Single Judge already granted him
protection up to 30th June, 2024, we are of the view that no
further relief can be granted to the appellant/original petitioner
in the present appeal. Learned Single Judge has not committed
any error while passing the impugned order and, therefore, no
interference is required in the present appeal.
18. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 11.08.2025
Transmission Date
