Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Saw v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13136 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.

Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Saw Son of Late Gopichand Prasad Resident of - Katari Hill, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya. 2.

Santosh Kumar Son of Rambali Ram Resident of- Katari Hill, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya.

3.

Arun Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad Resident of- Budha Colony, Katari Hill Road, Ambedkar More, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya. 4.

Naresh Manjhi Son of- Musafir Manjhi Resident of- Katari Hill, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya.

5.

Jai Prakash Paswan @ Prakash Paswan Son of Musafir Paswan Resident ofKatari Hill, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya. 6.

Kavita Devi @ Babita Devi Wife of Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Prasad Resident of- Dhanchhuha, P.O.- Badgaon, P.S.- Mau, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gaya.

3.

The Circle Officer, Town, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yogesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Standing Counsel 24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 24-10-2024 Though the present writ petition was filed by the petitioners for quashing the notice dated 1.8.2024, issued by the Circle Officer, Town, Gaya, i.e. the Respondent No. 3, in connection with Encroachment Case No. 4 of 2024-25, however, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent-State, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case that the Respondent No. 3 has already

Patna High Court CWJC No.13136 of 2024(3) dt.24-10-2024 2/2 passed the final order under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956") on 1.8.2024, hence, in case the petitioners are so aggrieved they can challenge the same, by filing appropriate appeal, under Section 11 of the Act, 1956.

2.

In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid order dated 1.8.2024, by filing appropriate appeal, however, seeks some protection during the interregnum period. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

3.

It is needless to state that for a period of four weeks from today, status quo, existing as on today qua the land/houses of the petitioners in question, shall be maintained, in order to enable them to file appropriate appeal and seek interim relief. 4.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off on the aforesaid terms.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U