Smt. Usha Rani v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12695 of 2014 ====================================================== Smt. Usha Rani, wife of Sri Anil Kumar Mandal, resident of Mohalla- North Hajipur, Kutchery Road, P.S.- Chitraguta Nagar, District- Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishwaesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.

3. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Khagaria.

4. The Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Khagaria. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dronacharya For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nadeem Seraj, GP-20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 22-04-2015 Heard Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Nadeem Seraj, learned Government Pleader No.20 for the State.

This writ petition was initially filed seeking direction to the respondents not to interfere with the right, title and possession over the raiyati land of the petitioner and in case they intend to acquire the same for construction of Rail-road/overbridge then she should be paid compensation. A further prayer was made not to disturb the possession of the petitioner in the garb of public land to deny compensation.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and in which it has been specifically denied in paragraphs 13 and 15 that the respondents have nothing to do with the land of the petitioner which is far away from the construction site. It is also contended that the respondents have not disturbed the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12695 of 2014 (2) dt.22-04-2015 possession of the petitioner.

In the meanwhile an encroachment proceedings has been initiated and the petitioner by way of an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.3006 of 2015 now seeks to question the initiation of an encroachment proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 by impugning the notice in the interlocutory application. In my opinion, this initiation of encroachment proceedings is an independent cause of action and cannot be challenged by way of an interlocutory application for the foundational facts to question the same is completely missing in the writ petition.

In the circumstances, this Court not finding sufficient ground to grant indulgence on the issue initially raised by the petitioner in respect of payment of compensation nor being satisfied that the petitioner can be permitted to question the encroachment proceedings by filing an interlocutory application would dispose of this writ petition affording liberty to the petitioner to question the initiation of the encroachment proceedings by way of an independent application. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U