Jannati Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13179 of 2013 ====================================================== Jannati Khatoon, Wife of Md. Allaudin, Resident of Village- Kanhwa, P.S.- Bela, Dist.- Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Principal Secretary Land Reform Department Government of Bihar, Patna

3. District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Sitamarhi

4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Sitamarhi

5. Circle Officer, Parihar, P.S.- Bela, Dist.- Sitamarhi

6. Khalilul Rahman, Son of Motiuar Rahman, Vill.- Kanhwa P.S.- Bela Dist.- Sitamarhi

7. Most. Edli, Wife of Sheikh Md. Jan, Vill.- Kanhwa P.S.- Bela, Dist.- Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Khurshid Alam, AAG-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG-10 appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5. The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.07.2012, passed by the Circle Officer, Parihar, in Encroachment Case No. 4/2012-13, whereby the encroachment proceeding initiated with regard to encroachment over R.S.P. No.4956, corresponding to C.S.P. No.1512, situated in VillageKanhwa, P.S.-Bela, Thana No.86 in the District of Sitamarhi has been dropped. Further prayer has been made to initiate the encroachment proceeding and get the encroachment removed. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13179 of 2013 (4) dt.10-05-2017 2/2 private respondent in view of the nature of the order this Court proposes to pass.

Admittedly, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed under section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 11 of the Act provides the remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Collector under sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act. In view of the fact that petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal, this Court is not inclined to exercise extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Under the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions by filing an appeal under section 11 of the Act. If such an appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the Appellate Authority may consider to condone the delay in filing appeal in view of the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court and decide the appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U