Vijay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17949 of 2016 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Singh son of Late Ram Narain Singh, resident of VillageGamharia, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Govt of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

3.

The Sub-Divisional Bikram Ganj, Rohtas.

4.

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bikramganj. 5.

The Anchal Adhikari, Karakat, Rohtas.

6.

Bishram Singh, 7.

Kavilash Singh, Both sons of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, resident of VillageGamharia, P.O.- Bad Gorari, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Roy-Gp18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 06-04-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents specially the Respondent no. 4 the Land Reforms Deputy Collector to remove the encroachment made by Respondent no.6 and 7 over the Land of the petitioner pertaining to Khata no.133 Kheshra No. 1055 having an area of 4 decimals equal to 10 kari x 40 Kari situated in village Gamharia thana no.

Patna High Court CWJC No.17949 of 2016(2) dt.06-04-2023 2/2 659 of the District of Rohtas which has been encroached by the Respondent no.

6 and 7 without any authority of law as has been held by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bikramganj in his order dated 16-6-2014 as contained in Annexure.2... but despite that till day the encroachment has not been removed from the land in question of the petitioner and nothing has been done as has been laid down under section 15 of the BLDR Act and as such the action of the Respondent is not permissible in law and thus vitiated."

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) kanchan/- U