Bhikham Miyan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17318 of 2021 ====================================================== Bhikham Miyan Son of Dil Miyan @ Dina Miyan, resident of Village - Pakridayal, P.S. and Block - Pakaridayal, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran.

2.

The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran. 3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakridayal, East Champaran. 4.

The Circle Officer, Pakridayal, East Champaran. 5.

The S.H.O., Pakridayal P.S., District - East Champaran. 6.

Rameshwar Paswan, Son of Late Ram Bilash Paswan, XXXX 7.

Bharu Paswan, Son of Rameshwar Paswan, Resident of Village - Pakridayal, P.S. and Block - Pakaridayal, District - East Champaran. 8.

Lakhi Paswan, Son or Rameshwar Paswan, Resident of Village - Pakridayal, P.S. and Block - Pakaridayal, District - East Champaran. 9.

Mithun Kumar Son of Rameshwar Paswan, Resident of Village - Pakridayal, P.S. and Block - Pakaridayal, District - East Champaran. 10.

Jagu Paswan, Son of Rameshwar Paswan, Resident of Village - Pakridayal, P.S. and Block - Pakaridayal, District - East Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore ( AG ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 05-12-2022 Though the present writ petition has been filed for removal of encroachment from the Gairmazarua Aam road pertaining to Khesra no. 779 situated at village-Pakridayal, Mauza-Dumarbana, PS+Block- Pakridayal, Dist-East Champaran, however, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari stating therein

Patna High Court CWJC No.17318 of 2021(3) dt.05-12-2022 2/2 that the entire encroachment in question has been removed and this fact has been endorsed by the son of the petitioner by putting his signature, however, the said fact is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to agitate his subsisting grievance, if any, before the District Administration. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off as not pressed, however, with the aforesaid liberty. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U