← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/268/2025disposed

Shankar Kumar Khan v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri Dayanidhan Pandey, Secretary To Government In Department Of Art

2025-09-25Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh,Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.268 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.924 of 2011 ====================================================== Shankar Kumar Khan ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar through Sri Dayanidhan Pandey, Secretary to Government in Department of Art & Ors.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Nawal Kishor Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 25-09-2025 The present contempt application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the contemnors/opposite parties for willful disobedience of order dated 09.09.2013 in CWJC No.924 of 2011 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, operative portion of which reads as under:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to letter contained in Annexure-D dated 27.6.2013 written by the Block Development Officer, Saharsa to the Incharge Officer, General Branch, recommending construction of Stadium for sports facility on the land.

Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that the Rural Development Department has decided to

Patna High Court MJC No.268 of 2025(4) dt.25-09-2025 2/3 construct Panchayat Bhawan in every Panchayat and for which the respective D.D.C. has been asked to give details of the land. Aam Sabha of Gram Panchayat, Barahser was held on 15.8.2006 and decided to construct Panchayat Bhawan on the present place. Only 15 dhurs of land is proposed to be used for the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan and rest of the play ground shall remain free for games.

We are informed that the total area of play ground is approximately 5 Bighas 3 Kathas and 11 Dhurs. No assistance has been given to us by the parties with regard to ideal area required for a play ground. We, therefore, direct that the Department of Sports of the State Government, shall examine the ideal area required for a play ground and that which may be required, if stadium is to be constructed tomorrow on the land to be left undisturbed and free. The Panchayat Bhawan can be constructed in the remaining area, if any."

2. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, a show-cause has been filed on behalf of O.P. No.2, which is on record. The following statements have been made in paragraph nos.6 to 9: "6. That it is further stated that the Circle Officer, Sattar Kataiya directed the Anchal Amin and Revenue Employee, Barahsher to measure and inspect present status of the land in question and submit their report.

7. That in compliance of aforesaid direction, the Anchal Amin and Revenue Employee, Barahsher submitted their report after enquiring into matter and

Patna High Court MJC No.268 of 2025(4) dt.25-09-2025 3/3 after inspecting the land in question.

8. That from bare perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the Anchal Amin and Revenue Employee, Barahsher it is evidently clear that the sports ground of Barahsher is in plot no. 1857 area 05 Bigha 03 Kattha 11 Dhurs, under Khata No. 256, whereas the Panchayat Bhawan is under construction in plot no.1829 under Khata No. 256. Hence the claim of the petitioner that the Panchayat Bhawan is being constructed on the land of sports ground of Barahsher is not tenable and same is denied.

9. That with regard to the compliance of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Court, it is humbly submitted that the total area required for the sports ground of Barahsher is 15625 Square Meter i.e. 3 Acres 86 Decimals has been allotted."

3. Considering the statements made in the paragraphs referred above, we are of the considered opinion that no further order is required to be passed in this application.

4. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J.) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.) Gaurav Kumar/- U