Muneshwar Mehta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15349 of 2016 =================================================== Muneshwar Mehta, Son of Late Pan Mehta, Resident of Mohalla- New Area, Piparpati, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. District Magistrate, Gaya.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.
4. Circle Officer, Town Block, Gaya.
5. Munna Singh Son of Umesh Prasad Singh Resident of VillageGuljana, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya. .... .... Respondents.
=================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. : Ms. Priya Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kishore Roy-GP18 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks direction for removal of encroachment made by respondent no. 5 from Plot No. 229 appertaining to Khata No. 84, Mohalla-Piparpati, Town Gaya, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Gaya.
It is contended that the land is in the nature of Gair Majarua Jagirdar and, after vesting, it merged into the public land of the State, however, the private respondent has encroached the same and despite representation made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Gaya, no action has been taken as yet.
Accordingly, this application is being disposed of with
Patna High Court CWJC No.15349 of 2016 dt.18-11-2016 a direction to the District Magistrate, Gaya to examine either himself or by relegating it to the Circle Officer concerned as to whether there is any encroachment upon the public land or not. If it is found that there is some encroachment on public land then a suitable action should be taken under the provision of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act and it should be brought to the logical conclusion within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, no final order should be passed without granting reasonable opportunity to all the concerned persons including the private respondent. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case. Vikash/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.02.2017 Transmission Date NA