Ravindra Singh Kamta @ Ravindra Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16023 of 2021 ====================================================== Ravindra Singh Kamta @ Ravindra Singh Son of Bhola Singh Resident of Villlage-and Post-Kamta, Police Station Hilsa, District-Nalanda, Bihar, 801302.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna-800015, Bihar. 2.
The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms Bailey Road, New Secretariat Patna, Bihar.
3.
The Special Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land reforms, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar, 4.
The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Email-secy-reo-bih@nic.in 5.
The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, e-mail ID rirsec-bih@nic.in 6.
The Secretary namely Mr. Rajesh Bharti, Ministry of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar.
7.
The Comissioner, Patna, Bihar, Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar. 8.
The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 9.
The Additional Collector, Nalanda at Bihar sharif. 10.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, District-Nalanda Bihar. 11.
The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (The D.C.L.R.) Hilsa, Nalanda. 12.
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Hilsa through the Director General of Police, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 13.
The Circle Officer, Hilsa, through the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
14.
The Station House Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda through the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda at Biharsharif, Bihar.
15.
The Block Development Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda, Bihar. 16.
Mr. Akhilesh Prasad Sharma, the then Circle Officer, Hilsa through the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
17.
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Pandey (Office Code 271401) the then Revenue Karamchari, Hilsa, at Present Asthawan Block through the District Magistrate, Nalanda of Bihar Sharif.
18.
Mr. Pawan Kumar (Office Code 2714. 09) the Present Revenue Karamchai, Hilsa, In-charge of Kamta Panchayat, through the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif.
19.
Subodh Kumar Son of Late Nawal Singh, resident of Village-Kamta, Police Station Hilsa, District-Nalanda, Bihar.
2/8 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manish Kumar No 13 Mr. Rohit Kumar For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam (AAG-12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. KUMAR) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) Date : 13-09-2021 This petition was filed on 07.09.2021, which was registered and listed immediately, and is taken up today for hearing.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- "That the writ application is being filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the petitioner above named praying interalia the following reliefs:- (A) For issuance of a direction(s), order(s), or writ(s) including writ in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the concerned respondent authorities to take appropriate step(s) in accordance with law e.g. Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 for Removal of Encroachment made over the Gair Majarua Aam (Public Land) land which is a Rasta (Rasta) situated in Mauja-Kamta, Thana No. 60, Khata
3/8 No. 198, Khesra No. 2565 having area of 1 acre 22 decimals. Whereby and where under by the order dated 23.02.2018 passed in Encroachment case No. 20 of 2017-18 by the Circle Officer Hilsa directed to some of villager. (who forcible possession over the land) removed the Encroachment over the Land in question but they have not removed the Encroachment which is totally violence of the mandate rule as well as violence of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.
(B) For issuance of direction(s), order(s) or writ(s) including writ in nature of Mandamus Commanding the concerned respondent authorities to take appropriate step(s) for early disposal of the Encroachment case No. 20 of 2017-18 pending before the Circle Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.
(C) For issuance of direction(s), order(s) or writ(s) including writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities to take appropriate step(s) for disciplinary action(s) against the responsible officers for delayed removal of the Encroachment made over land in question.
(D) For issuance of direction(s), order(s) or writ(s) including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities, to take appropriate step(s) for implementation of order/judgment dated
4/8 14.01.2020 passed in Ananya No.
999950109101907044/2A by Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department (Annexure-) contained in letter No. 134 dated 17.01.2020, whereby and where under the Additional Chief Secretary directed the concerned respondent authorities to remove the encroachment over the land in question and also directed the respondent authorities to initiate a disciplinary proceedings make framing of Articles of charge against Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Sharma the Circle Officer Hilsa.
(E) Any other writ/writs for granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2 SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:- "34. The learned counsel for the parties addressed us on the question of the bona fides of Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We leave this question open and do not express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the High Court in this regard.
35. However, we note that generally speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] to this effect as follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16) "16. The writ petitions before us are not inter parties disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a
5/8 hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court."
36. A considerable amount has been said about public interest litigation in R&M Trust [R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91] and it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this except to say that in issues pertaining to good governance, the courts ought to be somewhat more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation. However, in matters that may not be of moment or a litigation essentially directed against one organisation or individual (such as the present litigation which was directed only against Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj was impleaded) ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained. Other remedies are also available to public spirited litigants and they should be encouraged to avail of such remedies.
37. In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the category of public interest litigation and for which other remedies are available, insofar as the issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, this Court held in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra [Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150: 2004 SCC (L&S) 363] that: (SCC p. 160, paras 1213) "12. Mandamus literally means a command.
The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King's Bench (now Queen's Bench) directing performance of a public legal duty.
13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted."
38. A salutary principle or a well-recognised rule that needs to be kept in mind before issuing a writ of mandamus was stated in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630] in the
6/8 following words: (SCC pp. 641-42, paras 24-25) "24. ... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 11, p. 106:
'198. Demand for performance must precede application.-As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.'
25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution." After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, states that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the authority concerned or any of the statutory authority, to consider and decide the representation which the petitioner shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the grievance(s).
Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously and
7/8 preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order.
Statement accepted and taken on record.
As such, petition stands disposed of in the following terms:- (a) Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned within a period of four weeks from today by filing a representation for redressal of the grievance(s); (b) The authority concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order;
(c) Needless to add, while considering such representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing be afforded to the parties; (d) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;
(e) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;
8/8 (f) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if the need so arises subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action;
(g) Liberty also reserved to the petitioner to make a mention for listing of the petition on priority basis. As and when any such mention is made, Registry shall take steps for listing the petition at the earliest.
(h) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open;
(i) The proceedings, during the time of current Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode;
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) Shageer/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 16/09/2021 Transmission Date