Vinod Singh v. Divesh Sehra District Magistrate, Siwan And ORS.

Patna High Court MJC No.6035 of 2013 dt.19-02-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.6035 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1223 of 2013 =========================================================== VINOD SINGH, S/O SRI B.D. SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- POKHRERA, ANCHALPACHRUKHI, P.S.- PACHRUKHI, DISTRICT- SIWAN .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

1. DIVESH SEHRA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN

2. CIRCLE OFFICER, PACHRUKHI, SIWAN

3. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, SIWAN .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. RANJAN KUMAR DUBEY For the Respondent/s : Mr. KUNDAN BHADUR SINGH =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-02-2015 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this application when the case is called out while learned A.C. to S.C. 22 appearing on behalf of the state is present. The present contempt application has been filed for noncompliance of the order dated 21.01.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1223 of 2013 whereunder the aforesaid writ application was disposed of with observation that if a public land is encroached and is reported to the authorities of the Government, they are under legal obligation to take steps in accordance with law for getting it vacated and also with direction to the District

Patna High Court MJC No.6035 of 2013 dt.19-02-2015 Magistrate, Siwan to see that immediate steps are initiated in the matter.

Learned A.C. to S.C. 22 appearing for the State submits that in compliance of the order under contempt, the Circle Officer, Pachrukhi Anchal, initiated an Encroachment Case No. 05 of 2013-14 against the encroachers after service of notice to them. The encroachers were fully removed the encroachment on disputed plot no. 1301, which would appear from paragraph 15 of the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. Since the order, under contempt, has been complied with by the opposite parties, therefore, no further action is required. Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U