← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/16544/2015disposed

Hridaya Narayan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2025-04-03Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16544 of 2015 ====================================================== Hridaya Narayan Singh son of Late Bilagu Yadav Resident of village- Itahi Gajadhara, P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.

3.

The Circle Officer, Durgawati, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. M.K. Sinha, S.C.-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the illegality /validity of the notice dated 31.07.2015 issued by the Respondent No.3 by which the authority is directed to remove the house over the land in question.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuing the aforesaid notice by which the authority has directed to remove the encroachment over the land in question, the petitioner has not been heard.

4. Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that in compliance of the order dated 12.03.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 752 of 2015, the present

Patna High Court CWJC No.16544 of 2015(3) dt.03-04-2025 2/2 proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner and other persons. But, he fairly submits that before issuing the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has not been heard.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts that before issuing the aforesaid notice the petitioner has not been heard, the notice dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure-1) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing all the concerned including the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid direction/liberty, this writ application stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) priyanka/- U