Shiv Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18922 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.

Shiv Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh Resident of VillageBibipur (Vijaypur), Post Office- Dosut, Police Station- Rahui, DistrictNalanda. 2.

Abhay Singh Son of Late Ram Pravesh Singh Resident of Village- Bibipur (Vijaypur), Post Office- Dosut, Police Station- Rahui, District- Nalanda. 3.

Sanju Devi Wife of Dharmendra Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Bibipur (Vijaypur), Post Office- Dosut, Police Station- Rahui, District- Nalanda. 4.

Virendra Singh Son of Late Gopal Singh Resident of Village- Bibipur (Vijaypur), Post Office- Dosut, Police Station- Rahui, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through Principle Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda.

3.

The Circle Officer, Rahui, District- Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Bansh Dubey, Advocate Mr.Ashok Kr. Garg, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ajay Behari Sinha, GA-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 18-12-2024

1. Though the present petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 20.08.2024, issued by the Circle Officer, Rahui, District- Nalanda, i.e. the respondent no.3, in connection with Encroachment Case No.05 of 2023-24, however, at the outset, the learned counsel for the respondentState has referred to the counter affidavit, filed in the present case to submit that the Circle Officer, Rahui, District- Nalanda, has already passed the final order under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred

Patna High Court CWJC No.18922 of 2024(2) dt.18-12-2024 2/2 to as 'the Act, 1956') on 22.11.2024, in connection with Encroachment Case No.05 of 2023-24, hence in case the petitioners are so aggrieved they may prefer an appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956.

2. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to file appropriate appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956, 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 the petitioners to file appropriate appeal and seek interim relief.

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

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U