Suresh Mahto And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18911 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Suresh Mahto and Ors son of Late Dhaneshwar Mahto 2.

Shravan Mahto son of Late Dhaneshwar Mahto 3.

Gauri Devi wife of Late Upendra Mahto 4.

Sone Lal Mahto son of Late Uchit Mahto 5.

Mahabir Mahto son of Late Guneshwar Mahto 6.

Jai Prakash Mahto son of Late Guneshwar Mahto 7.

Ghutar Mahto son of Ganga Mahto 8.

Kameshwar Mahto son of Late Mishri Mahto 9.

Shabhak Lal Mahto alias Shubhak Lal son of Late Santu Mahto 10.

Rukan Mukhiya son of Late Dahu Mukhiya 11.

Kari Khan son of Late Manna Mian 12.

Bibi Sahnaj Khatoon daughter of Late Md. Khalil Mian 13.

Mastkin Mian son of Late Md. Saheb Khan 14.

Chulhay Mian son of Late Md. Saheb Khan 15.

Rustam son of Late Jalal Khan 16.

Gafur Mian son of Late Sakhawat Mian 17.

Md. Manjur son of Late Md. Bilsu 18.

Arif son of Late Nazif 19.

Md. Kalam son of Late Md. Idrish 20.

Md. Tulla son of Late Md. Anish 21.

Wakil Mian son of Late Bagru Mian 22.

Md. Adalat son of Late Nirsu 23.

Md. Muddin son of Md. Fakruddi 24.

Md. Sabud alias Md. Shabir son of Late Najib 25.

Md. Kayum son of Dukha 26.

Md. Suddin son of Md. Fakruddin 27.

Suresh Bhagat son of Late Ghoghar Bhagat 28.

Md. Rajjak son of Late Magan Mian 29.

Md. Jamaluddin son of Late Janulabdin 30.

Md. Farook son of Late Hafizuddin 31.

Md. Barik son of Ali Hassan 32.

Md. Mustafa son of Late Saheb Mian 33.

Md. Sanobar son of Md. Ganori 34.

Md. Ainul son of Late Gaffar Mian 35.

Daud Khan son of Md. Ashgar

2/5 36.

Md. Jahir son of Late Kampotar 37.

Md. Khurshid son of Mustafa 38.

Md. Mahiuddin alias Mahdi son of Late Hanif 39.

Md. Maklu son of Late Md. Naim 40.

Md. Uddin son of Fakruddin 41.

Salauddin son of Khudabaks 42.

Md. Sattar son of Late Md. Ismail 43.

Md. Fakruddin son of Late Magain Mian 44.

Nathan Yadav son of Late Banilal Yadav 45.

Md. Nasir son of Late Fagu Mian 46.

Md. Nasim son of Late Umed Ali 47.

Md. Mansur son of Late Mahiuddin 48.

Md. Sultan son of Md. Moharam 49.

Md. Tohid son of Late Md. Nirsu 50.

Md. Khalid son of Late Md. Safruddin 51.

Nehal son of Late Ghuran 52.

Rajendra Mahto son of Late Bibhichhan Mahto 53.

Bijendra Kumar son of Late Bibhichhan Mahto 54.

Nepali Mahto son of Late Uchit Mahto 55.

Bishnudeo Mahto son of Late Uchit Mahto 56.

Jagmaya Devi wife of Late Harihar Mahto 57.

Mankuni Mahto son of Late Harihar Mahto 58.

Jitendra alias Jitendra Mahto son of Late Bibhichhan Mahto 59.

Kirat Mahto son of Late Anandi Mahto 60.

Saraswati Devi wife of Late Gobardhan Mahto 61.

Arti Devi wife of Nathan Yadav 62.

Urmila Devi wife of Mahendra Mahto 63.

Ramesh Mukhiya son of Shivji Mukhiya 64.

Nirmala Devi wife of Dipu Mukhiya 65.

Sugya Devi wife of Bidan Mukhiya 66.

Surendra Mahto son of Late Parsadi Mahto 67.

Laxmi Devi wife of Ganesh Yadav 68.

Rameshwar Sah son of Late Asharfi Sah 69.

Md. Bechan son of Late Md. Sahid 70.

Md. Tullah son of Md. Sarit 71.

Saud Alam son of Late Ramjan Mistri 72.

Bibi Hasina w/o late Hedayat Mian @ Hedayat Mistri

3/5 73.

Mahmood Alam s/o late Ramjan Mian 74.

Md. Munna Khan son of Late Suleman Khan 75.

Shivjee Mukhiya s/o Late Bhagwat Mukhiya 76.

Bibi Samila w/o Late Raffique All residents of village - Budhma Lakhraj, Post office - Budhma, Police Station District - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The District Magistrate, Madhepura.

3.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhepura.

4.

The Circle Officer, Madhepura.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surya Narayan Yadav For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Md.Khurshid Alam-Aag12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The writ application has been filed for quashing the notices issued by the respondent-Circle Officer, Madhepura vide letter No. 729-2 dated 27.8.2016 by which the petitioner has been given notices to show-cause as to why the encroachment made by them on the plot mentioned in the notice be not removed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are residing there for more than 100 years and some of them have been granted Purcha under Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act and they are also having houses under the Indira Aawas Yojana.

4/5

4. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the notices and show-cause issued to them on that account.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the present writ application is not maintainable against show-cause notice issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, in view of the several decisions of the Hon'ble Patna High Court as the authority have noticed the encroachers only to appear and file their show-causes.Learned counsel further submits that the show-cause was issued way back in 2016 and petitioner till date has failed to appear, therefore, the writ is devoid on merit, learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submit that if the authorities proceed to dispossess them then in that context they should be given liberty to approach before the Circle Officer, Madhepura.

6. This Court cannot grant liberty to petitioner to file show-cause in the encroachment proceedings already initiated 10 years ago but for the ends of justice if petitioners are aggrieved by any action of the authorities, may file a detailed representation before the Circle Officer, Madhepura/ respondent No. 4, thereafter, the Circle Officer may examine the grievance

5/5 of the petitioners afresh in the light of their title/possession of the land, recorded, in their favour within three months from the date of representation. Then Circle Officer may examine and decide the representation in accordance with law after hearing the parties, only after their grievance is found to be genuine. This Court is of the opinion that the earlier encroachment proceedings wherein any show-cause was asked from the petitioner will have no bearing in this matter. It is also made clear that if the Purchas have been issued to the petitioners under the authority of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, then the authorities can only take recourse to the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for removing them from their respective possession.

7. Application is disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations.

(Raj Kumar, J) ashutosh/- U