Dinbandhu Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6233 of 2019 ====================================================== Dinbandhu Prasad, Son of Tej Naraian Prasad, Resident of Village-Ramphal Sah Tola Ward No. 02, Block-Kahara P.S. Saharsa Distt.-Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Collector, Samastipur 2.

The Collector, Samastipur 3.

The Executive Engineer Road Construction Department (Work) Pramanadal, Saharsa 4.

The Commissioner Koshi Pramanadal Cum First Appellate Authority, Saharasa 5.

The District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Saharsa 6.

The Circle Inspector, Anchal Saharsa 7.

The Anchal Amin, Anchal Saharsa ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Mira Kumari For the Respondent/s :

Md. Khurshid Alam (AAG-12) Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is the petitioner's grievance that construction of a road is being made on the petitioner's raiyati land. Raising his grievance, the petitioner appears to have approached the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Saharsa, under the Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015, which has been turned down by an order, dated 13.07.2018. Petitioner's appeal against the said order before the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, has also been rejected by an order,

Patna High Court CWJC No.6233 of 2019(2) dt.02-04-2019 2/2 dated 28.07.2018. The said order(s) passed by the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Saharsa, and the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, have been challenged under the present writ application.

From the impugned orders, I notice that the authorities have disputed the claim of the petitioner that the said land is his raiyati land, rather they appear to have reached a conclusion, the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land. Apparently, the nature of dispute, which the petitioner is raising in the present writ application, cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders do not require any interference. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. This application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Ashish/- U