Hira Lal Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1700 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18754 of 2017 ====================================================== Hira Lal Ram Son of Jugai Ram resident of VillageP.O.- Bardaha, P.S.CircleBabubarhi, District- Madhubani. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Secretary, Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Collector, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 4.

The Additional Collector, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 5.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 6.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. 7.

The Circle Officer, Babubarhi, District- Madhubani. 8.

Jugai Ram Son of late Dukhai Ram@ Pukhai Ram resident of VillageP.O.- Bardaha, P.S.Circle- Babubarhi, District- Madhubani. 9.

Basukinath Jha Son of late Lutan Jha resident of VillageP.O.- Bardaha, P.S.Circle- Babubarhi, District- Madhubani.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam- Aag12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 28-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

Delay is condoned.

It is the grievance of the appellant / respondents in the writ petition that the impugned order dated 9.2.2018 passed in CWJC No. 18754 of 2017 stands passed without hearing him.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1700 of 2018(3) dt.28-01-2020 2/2 Without going into the issue, we notice that only direction issued by the learned Single Judge was for taking appropriate action in removing the encroachments allegedly occupied by the present appellant.

The appellant contends that the land in question is not in encroachment but was allotted to him in accordance with law. Well, neither the learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of plea nor are we examining the same, for the direction contained in the impugned order is only with regard to initiation and conclusion of action in accordance with law. We notice that there is a specific statute i.e. the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 in terms whereof, the authorities are required to take appropriate action for removal of encroachment and in terms thereof, the alleged encroachers also have a right to set up their defence.

As such, we dispose of the present appeal reserving liberty to the appellant to take recourse to such remedies as are available under the law. The impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or illegal, in any manner.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Tiwary/-Ajay/- U