Paras Nath Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6427 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.

Paras Nath Singh 2.

Dhananjay Singh Both Sons of Ram Narayan Singh 3.

Ram Ayodhya Singh 4.

Dinesh Singh Both Son of Ram Prit Singh 5.

Ram Narayan Singh 6.

Ram Adhar Singh Both Son of Late Chandrama Singh 7.

Birendra Singh Son of Ramadhar Singh All residents of Village - Nawadih, P.O. - Rupahtha, Anchal and P.S. - Nokha, District - Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar.

2.

The Secretary Revenue/Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Collector, Rohtas.

4.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas.

5.

The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram.

6.

The Circle Officer, Nokha, Rohtas.

7.

Ramashis Singh Son of Kishun Singh 8.

Janardan Singh 9.

Uma Shankar Singh 10.

Uday Narayan Singh 8 to 10 are Sons of Ramashish Singh 11.

Rupesh Kumar Singh Son of Uma Shankar Singh 12.

Rajesh Kumar 13.

Kamal Ranjan Both Sons of Janardan Singh All are residents of Nawadih, P.O. - Rupahtha, P.S. - Anchal Nokha, District - Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Smanoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-09 For the Private Respondents: Mr. Vikalp, Advocate

Patna High Court CWJC No.6427 of 2015 dt.27-03-2025 2/3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Private Respondents.

2. The petitioners have challenged the legality/validity of the order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram (Respondent No. 5) in Case No. 131/1415 by which the Respondent No. 5 has directed to clean the encroachment over the land in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Respondent No. 5 has no authority to look the encroachment over the land in question and the competent authority under the Act, is Respondent No. 6, the Circle Officer, Nokha, Rohtas. It appears that Respondent No. 5 has exceeded his jurisdiction and pass the order in favour of the Private Respondents and it also appears from the impugned order itself that the impugned order is ex-parte order which suggests that without hearing the petitioner, the authority has passed the order. Despite of fact that the petitioners have already filed their written statement before the authority concerned. In fact, the petitioners had already filed their written statement before the Respondent No. 5 on 18.12.2014 itself.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6427 of 2015 dt.27-03-2025 3/3

4. Learned counsel for the Private Respondents submits that the petitioners have a remedy to file appeal before the Commissioner.

5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it transpired that the Deputy Director, Land Reforms, Sasaram (Respondent No.

5) has passed the order by which he has directed to remove the encroachment of the land in question and apart from that Respondent No. 5 has not considered the written statement of the petitioners and the Circle Officer, Nokha, Rohtas (Respondent No.

6) is the competent authority to hear the matter pertaining to encroachment of the land in question.

6. The order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Director, Land Reforms, Sasaram (Respondent No. 5) is hereby set aside and the writ petition stands allowed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 28.03.2025 Transmission Date N.A.