Amarjeet Kumar, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.58 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14510 of 2019 ====================================================== Amarjeet Kumar, S/o Umesh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Rahsha Doyam, Ward No. 7, P.S.- Bagwanpur, Anchal-Goraul, District-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Smt. Udita Singh, the D.M. Vaishali at Hajipur. 2.

Smt. Udita Singh, the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 3.

Jitendra Kumar Singh, the Deputy Development Commissioner, DistrictVaishali. 4.

Sandip Kumar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, District-Vaishali at Hajipur.

5.

Kumar Ravindra, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mahua, DistrictVaishali. 6.

Praveen Kumar, the Circle Officer, Goraul, District-Vaishali. 7.

Jagunath Reddy, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur. 8.

Chandra Bhushan Sukla, the Officer in Charge, Bhagwanpur P.S., DistrictVaishali. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. AC to GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 01-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to learned G.A.-5 for the State.

2. In paragraph '4' of the showcause filed on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 it is stated that the order of this Court has been complied with and all the encroachments made over the public land bearing RSP No. 1275 under Khata No. 439 situated in village Rahsa Doyam Ward No.7 have been removed. A copy of the ordersheet of Encroachment Case No. 6/2021-22 has

Patna High Court MJC No.58 of 2020(5) dt.01-12-2023 2/2 been brought on record as Annexure 'A'.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the encroachment has been removed but his grievance is that the debris of the demolished building are still lying on the public road and had not been removed and for that reason the road is not clear. He has also a grievance that because the road has not been cleared, the people who are involved in the encroachment of the public land are making unauthorised constructions.

4. Since the order of this Court has been complied with, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the contempt application but liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate, Hajipur with his grievances which will be looked into and in case it is found that the public land, on which the encroachment has been removed, is still being encroached, the same will not be allowed and an appropriate measure shall be taken by the District Magistrate for removal of the debris from the public land, if any.

5. This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ( Partha Sarthy, J) Rishi/- U T