Patna High Court
Shambhu Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 10 January, 2025
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19696 of 2024
======================================================
Shambhu Singh Son of Jagdish Singh resident of village and P.O.- Ladho,
P.S.- Biraul, District- Darbhanga, Pin- 847203.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, Darbhanga.
3. The Sub-divisional Officer Biraul, District- Darbhanga.
4. The Sub-divisional Police Officer, Biraul, District- Darbhanga.
5. The Circle Officer, Block- Biraul, District- Darbhanga.
6. The SHO, Biraul Police Station, District- Darbhanga.
7. The Executive Engineer, Rular Works Department, Work Division- Biraul,
District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 10-01-2025
The petitioner's contention is that though a road of
2.085 kms was sanctioned to be constructed extending from
village Ladho to Village Tola in Biraul Block, the construction
has not been completed due to encroachments of the road. The
Circle Officer in a Public Grievance Petition has sought for
sufficient Police Force to remove the encroachment, as is
indicated in Annexure-P/3, which is not granted by the
Jurisdictional Police, is the contention.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19696 of 2024 dt.10-01-2025
2. We have to immediately notice that there is a
remedy available to the petitioner under the Bihar Public Land
Encroachment Act, which has to be approached for the purpose
of removal of encroachment. We also notice that despite
allegations of encroachment, none of the encroachers are made
party in the writ petitioner. We are of the opinion that no coercive
orders of vacation of premises can be issued unless the
encroachers are heard; especially when the law demands that
even rank trespassers are to be noticed before they are evicted
from possession.
3. We find absolutely no reason to interfere and the
present petition stands dismissed with the liberty aforesaid;
without any observation on merits, or even the locus standi of the
petitioner, which has to be decided by the Appropriate Authority
under the Act of 1956; if a proper application is moved with the
necessary parties arrayed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
sharun/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.01.2025
Transmission Date NA
