Vishundev Ray v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11816 of 2024 ====================================================== Vishundev Ray Son of Nem Chand Ray, Resident of Fatahpur Pakri, P.O. Fatehpur Pakari, Police Station- Mahua, District- Vaishali, Bihar-844114. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

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

3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur,Bihar. 4.

The District Magistrate Cum District Collector, District- Vaishali at Hajipur, Bihar.

5.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mahua, District-Vaishali, Bihar. 6.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, District-Vaishali, Bihar. 7.

The Circle Officer, Mahua, District- Vaishali, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raghwanand, GA-11 Mr.Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 23-09-2024

1. Though the present writ petition was filed for quashing the notice dated 23.07.2024, issued by the Circle Officer, Mahua, District-Vaishali, under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, in connection with Encroachment Case No.06 of 2022-23, however, at the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 17.07.2024, passed by the Circle Officer, Mahua, District-Vaishali, under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, in

Patna High Court CWJC No.11816 of 2024(3) dt.23-09-2024 2/2 connection with Encroachment Case No.06 of 2022-23, by filing appropriate appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, however, seeks some protection during the interregnum period. Liberty so sought is granted.

2. It is needless to state that for a period of eight weeks from today, status quo existing as on today qua the land/house of the petitioner in question shall be maintained, in order to enable him to file appropriate appeal and seek interim relief.

3. The writ petition stands disposed off on the aforesaid terms.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U