Ashok Kumar Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18025 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.

Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Lakshmeshwar Singh 2.

Anjani Kumar Singh, Son of Late Chandeshwar Prasad Singh 3.

Raghubansh Narain Singh, Son of Late Ram Nandan Pd Singh 4.

Vijendra Prasad Singh @ Vijendra Kumar Singh, Son of Late Tribhuwan Pd Singh 5.

Jai Prakash Singh, Son of Late Narendra Prasad Singh 6.

Sudhir Kumar Singh, Son of Late Nunnu Prasad Singh 7.

Vinod Kumar Singh, Son of Late Maheshwar Prasad Singh, All resident of Village- Nanpati Nagar, P.S.- Sakri, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 3.

The Addl. Collector, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 4.

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Madhubani.

5.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani. 6.

The Circle Officer, Pandaul, District- Madhubani. 7.

The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sakari, District- Madhubani. 8.

Ranjan Kumar Singh, Son of Satyendra Prasad Singh, resident of VillageNarpati Nagar, P.S.- Sakari, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhat Kumar Singh,Advocate For the State :

Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha,SC-19 Mr.Atul Shankar,AC to SC-19 For the Respondent No. 8: Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 10-05-2023 At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent-State seeks to file a counter affidavit, which is taken on record, wherein it has been submitted that no encroachment proceeding has been initiated as per the provisions contained in

Patna High Court CWJC No.18025 of 2017(3) dt.10-05-2023 2/2 the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and in fact erroneously, one Vividh Vaad Case No. 2 of 2016-17, was initiated, which has been found not to be in consonance with the provisions of law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that as far as the petitioners are concerned, no encroachment proceedings are in existence. Nonetheless, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take recourse to the due process of law, if so warranted.

The writ petition stands disposed off.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) sonal/S.SbU