Patna High Court
Navin Singh @ Navin Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2887 of 2024
======================================================
Navin Singh @ Navin Kumar Sharma S/o- Late Yogendra Prasad Singh @
Late Yogendra Prasad Sharma R/o- Village and P.O.- Ghoswari, P.S.-
Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
3. Collector, Patna.
4. Anchal Adhikari, Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Archana Meenakshee, GP-6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 12-02-2025
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
notice dated 16.12.2023, issued by the Circle Officer,
Bakhtiyarpur, Patna, i.e. the Respondent No. 4, whereby and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2887 of 2024 dt.12-02-2025
2/7
whereunder the petitioner has been asked to present his side of
the factual facts on 30.12.2023, by appearing personally or
through a representative who can put forth the defence of the
petitioner with regard to the encroachment made over
gairmazarua aam / malik land, appertaining to Khata No. 322,
Khesra No. 906 (encroached area ad-measuring 412.5 square
feet), situated at Mauza-Ghoswari, District-Patna, failing which
proceedings shall be initiated under the provisions of the Bihar
Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act, 1956").
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are
that the aforesaid land in question was settled by the then
zamindar in favor of the forefather of the petitioner long before
the cadastral survey had taken place in the district of Patna and
during cadastral survey it was found that the house of the
forefather of the petitioner was situated over the land in
question. Nonetheless, the aforesaid notice dated 16.12.2023 has
been sent by the Respondent No. 4 to the petitioner. Thereafter,
the petitioner had appeared before the Respondent No. 4 and
asked for time for filing show cause which was subsequently
filed by the petitioner, however without hearing the petitioner,
the Respondent No. 4 has issued a notice dated 18.1.2024, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2887 of 2024 dt.12-02-2025
3/7
connection with Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2022-23,
informing the petitioner that an order has been passed under the
provisions of the Act, 1956 for removing the encroachment
made over the aforesaid land, which has been found to be a
gairmazarua aam land. It is submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner had
contacted the office of the Respondent No. 4, however, a copy
of the final order passed by the Respondent No. 4 under the
provisions of the Act, 1956, has not been provided to the
petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the action of the Respondent No. 4 is
illegal and the land in question is not a public land, thus, no
order can be passed under the provisions of the Act, 1956.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents has
submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the
present case that the Respondent No. 4 had initiated
encroachment proceedings, vide Encroachment Case No. 11 of
2022-23, after the Revenue Karamchari had made an enquiry
and submitted a report wherein it has been stated that as per the
survey khatiyan, the land in question, appertaining to Khata No.
322, Plot No. 906, situated at Mauza-Ghoswari, District-Patna,
is a gairmazarua aam malik land. The Circle Amin had also
Patna High Court CWJC No.2887 of 2024 dt.12-02-2025
4/7
submitted a report dated 15.5.2023 along with a map before the
Respondent No. 4, wherein also it has been found that four
persons have constructed their houses over the land in question,
which is a gairmajarua malik land. A notice dated 16.12.2023
was then issued by the Respondent No. 4 under Section 3 of the
Act, 1956 to the encroachers including the petitioner to appear
on 30.12.2023 and submit evidence / document with regard to
their claim over the gairmazarua aam malik land, however, no
concrete proof was submitted by the encroachers / petitioner,
hence the Respondent No. 4 considering all the materials on
record has passed an order dated 15/18.1.2024, under Section
6(1) of the Act, 1956, finding the aforesaid land in question to
be a gairmazarua aam malik land and holding the petitioner and
others to be encroachers, who have encroached the aforesaid
government land. It is pointed out that the aforesaid order dated
15/18.1.2024
, passed by the Respondent No. 4, in connection
with Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2022-23, was challenged by
one another encroacher, namely Bipin Singh, by filing a writ
petition bearing CWJC No. 2888 of 2024, however, the said writ
petition has stood disposed off vide order dated 18.11.2024,
upon liberty having been sought by the learned counsel for the
petitioner of that case, who is also the counsel in the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.2887 of 2024 dt.12-02-2025
case, to challenge the said order dated 15/18.1.2024, by filing
appropriate appeal. Thus, it is submitted that similar order be
passed in the present case as well.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record from which it is apparent that
the petitioner had participated in the aforesaid encroachment
proceedings voluntarily and had not challenged the same
inasmuch as he had filed a show cause reply, as has been stated
in paragraph no. 7 of the present writ petition, hence now when
the final order has been passed by the Respondent No. 4 under
Section 6(1) of the Act, 1956, the petitioner has to take recourse
to the appropriate remedy provided for under the provisions of
the Act, 1956, i.e. filing an appeal under Section 11 of the Act,
1956 against the aforesaid order dated 15/18.1.2024. This Court
further finds that all the issues being raised by the petitioner in
the present writ petition can very well be raised before the
appellate authority, especially in view of the fact that no cogent
proof has been produced by the petitioner with regard to his
right / title over the aforesaid land in question and instead it has
been merely stated that the names of his ancestors were
recorded in the khatiyan which has not stood substantiated or
corroborated till date by any evidence brought forth by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2887 of 2024 dt.12-02-2025
petitioner inasmuch as there is no whisper in the entire writ
petition about any zamabandi existing in favor of the petitioner
with regard to the aforesaid land in question. Last but not the
least, the petitioner has failed to challenge the order dated
15/18.1.2024 passed by the respondent No. 4 under Section 6(1)
of the Act, 1956, hence the relief sought for in the present writ
petition i.e quashing of the notice dated 16.12.2023, issued by
the respondent No. 4 has become fossilised. It is a well-settled
law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal
of grievances and an aggrieved person has an effective
alternative remedy, a writ petition should not be entertained
ignoring statutory dispensation. Reference in this connection be
had to the judgment, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of
India, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and for the foregoing reasons, I deem it fit and proper to grant
liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order dated
15/18.1.2024, passed by the Respondent No. 4, in connection
with Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2022-23, by filing
appropriate appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956 and in
case, appropriate appeal is filed within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CWJC No.2887 of 2024 dt.12-02-2025
from today the same shall be decided by the appellate authority
within a period of four weeks, thereafter and till then no
coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off
on the aforesaid terms.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 16.12.2024
Uploading Date 12.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
