Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18549 of 2021 ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar Singh Son of Late Thakur Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla - Kushwaha Market, Paliganj, Police Station- Paliganj in the district of Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govenrment of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 4.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna. 5.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paliganj in the District of Patna. 6.

The Circle Officer, Paliganj Anchal in the District of Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Roy (GP18) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 14-12-2022 The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the notice dated 24.09.2021, issued by the Circle officer, Paliganj Anchal, Patna i.e. the respondent no. 6 under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956"). It is the complaint of the petitioner that the respondent no. 6 had though initiated an encroachment case bearing Encroachment case no. 10 of 1981-82 against the vendor of the petitioner namely Deo Prasad Paswan, however, the same was dropped vide order dated 15.05.1981.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18549 of 2021(3) dt.14-12-2022 2/2 The learned counsel for the respondent- State has filed a counter affidavit, which is taken on record from which, it is apparent that the subsequent action has been taken on account of the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna high Court and the subsequent contempt petition filed before this Court, however, it has been stated that steps have been taken to cancel the Jamabandi existing in the name of the petitioner but this Court finds that there is no whisper regarding passing of the final order under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1956. Thus, obviously, the notice under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 is illegal, hence is quashed.

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the State seeks liberty on behalf of the State to initiate appropriate proceedings and take suitable action, in case Jamabandi existing in the name of the encroacher including the petitioner herein, is cancelled. Liberty so sought is granted.

The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U