← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/1645/2012dismissed

Yamuna Pd. Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-07-14The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1645 of 2012 ====================================================== Yamuna Prasad Singh, S/O Late Triveni Singh, R/O Village - Jehanabad, P.S. Kudra, District - Kaimur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mr. Asangba Chuba Aao, S/O Not Known, the District Magistrate, Kaimur At Bhabhua.

3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Son Not Known the Sub - Divisional Officer, Mohania, District - Kaimur.

4. Mr. Pramod Kumar Chaube, Son Of Known the Anchal Adhikari, Kudra, P.S. Kudra, District - Kaimur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, G.A.1 Mr. Pawan Kumar, AC to GA-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 14-07-2017 On 22.07.2011 in CWJC No.9891 of 2008 when a prayer was made for removal of encroachment from the area in question, based on the counter affidavit it was found that Encroachment Case No.4 of 2007-08 has already been initiated and, therefore, respondent No.5, Circle Officer, was directed to take necessary action and dispose of the pending encroachment case.

Now, from the counter affidavit filed, it is seen that after taking proceedings on 21.08.2015, certain findings have been recorded and the encroachment proceedings have been finalized. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to indicate that in the original enquiry report submitted, it was reported that

Patna High Court MJC No.1645 of 2012 (8) dt.14-07-2017 2/2 there is an enquiry and now in an illegal manner, the proceedings have been concluded.

If that be so, the petitioner is required to challenge the proceedings and the order passed as the order passed in the writ petition was only to decide the case. The manner in which the encroachment case has been decided and illegality has been committed in deciding the case cannot be a ground to initiate action for contempt.

Accordingly, finding no ground to initiate action for contempt, the matter stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sunil/- U