Jagatanand Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2379 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13727 of 2013 ====================================================== JAGATANAND PRASAD SINGH Son of Late Ram Balak Singh resident of village + P.O. Konandpur, P.S. Pakribarawa, District - Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Ashok Kumar Singh

2. Sri Divesh Sehra THe District Magistrate, Nawadah

3. Sri Ramjee Singh, the Deputy Development of Commissioner, Nawadah

4. Sri Mahipal Singh, The Additional, Collector, Nawada

5. Sri Diwan Jafar Hussain, The Sub - Divisional officer, Nawadah

6. Sri Shubodh Kumar Singh, The D.C.L.R. Nawadah

7. Sri Prem Kumar Singh, The Block Development Officer, Pakribarwan, Nawadah

8. Sri Jay Ram Prasad, The Anchaladhikari Pakribarana, Nawadah

9. Sri Bhagwan Pd. Gupta The S.H.O. Pakribarana, Police Station Nawadah

10. Sri Anirudh Prasad, The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Kohandpur, P.S. Pakaribarana, Nawadah

11. Pradeep Kumar, Local MLA of warsaliganj Assembly Constituency Nawadah, P.S. Pakribarana, P.O. Konandpur, Nawadah .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Partha Sarthy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 08-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 9. The petitioner has filed rejoinder thereto. The application alleges willful/deliberate disregard/disobedience of the order 17.01.2014 passed in CWJC No. 13727 of 2013 (Annexure-1) operative part/portion whereof

Patna High Court MJC No.2379 of 2014 (5) dt.08-07-2015 2/3 reads as under:- Having considered the submissions of the parties, this Court is satisfied that, in the particular facts of the case, ends of justice shall be subserved if the application is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Respondent District Magistrate along with a copy of the order ventilating the aforesaid grievance. The Respondent District Magistrate upon filing of such a representation, shall consider and take appropriate action/decision as may be required expeditiously in accordance with law.

The contention of the petitioner is that the said order has not been complied with by the opposite party. Learned counsel for the State draws attention of the Court to the order in order to submit that this Court noticed that encroachments were made on the land of the petitioner by the private persons in the light whereof the said order was passed. In the show cause it has been stated on the basis of the report made by the Circle Officer that the land of the petitioner has been made free from encroachment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to dispute the aforesaid contention of the State.

Considering the order which this Court passed on the writ petition and the statements made in the show cause, I am satisfied that the order passed by this Court has substantially been complied with. The contempt application is dismissed.

Patna High Court MJC No.2379 of 2014 (5) dt.08-07-2015 3/3 Needless to observe that if the petitioner has any grievance relating to forcible construction of road thereon, he may seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum/authority in accordance with law.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U