Arun Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15516 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Arun Singh, Son of Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, resident of MohallaBharawpar Murarpur, Biharsharif, Police Station- Laheri in the district of Nalanda .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Home Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif

6. The Circle Officer, Biharsharif in the district of Nalanda

7. Sanjay Yadav, Son of Late Bijendra Gope

8. Arun Mahto, Son of Late Pachu Mahto

9. Bhola Sao, Son of Late Jagdish Sao

10. Garvu Yadav, Son of Tikar Yadav

11. Sumitra Devi, Wife of Harischandra Ravidas

12. Yadu Prasad, Son of Late Bhikhan Prasad

13. Md. Naushad Alam

14. Md. Irshad Alam, Both are Sons of Late Ushman Gani. All resident of Mohalla- Puna Sarai, P.S.- Laheri in the district of Nalanda .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG10- P.N.SHAHI =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 22-06-2015 This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 to 6 herein to remove the encroachments said to have been made by respondents 7 to 14 on the land bearing Khata No.185, Plot No.208, Thana No.123, MauzaKona Sarai of Nalanda district.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15516 of 2014 dt.22-06-2015 2/2 It is stated that the land in question was earmarked as a graveyard and on account of the lapse on part of the officials of the Government, respondents 7 to 14 have encroached the land and constructed houses. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

On the face of it, the writ petition is not maintainable. Firstly it is the duty of the concerned Mutawalli or the Managing Committee of Wakf to protect its properties. The petitioner is neither a Mutballi nor a member of the Wakf Board. Secondly, The Wakf Act prescribes specific procedure for protection of the Wakf property. Thirdly, disputed questions of title need to be examined before any specific order for eviction is passed. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) K.C.jha/- U