Ramnath Prasad @ Ramnath Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16091 of 2024 ====================================================== Ramnath Prasad @ Ramnath Singh Son of Late Vishundev Prasad Resident of Village-Reksa, Police Station-Ekangarsarai, District-Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, District-Nalanda. 4.

The Circle Officer, Block-Ekangarsarai, District-Nalanda. 5.

The Station House Officer, Police Station-Ekangarsarai, District-Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Intervenor :

Mr.Kamlesh Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Kahkashan Alam, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Sushil Kumar, GP-22 Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, AC to GP-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 26-11-2024 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 1.10.2024 and 14.10.2024, issued by the Circle Officer, Ekangarsarai, District-Nalanda, i.e. the Respondent No. 4, under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956"), in connection with Encroachment Case No. 3 of 2024-25. 2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the RespondentState submits that the final order, under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1956, has already been passed by the Respondent No. 4 on 1.10.2024, hence, in case, the petitioner is so aggrieved he may

Patna High Court CWJC No.16091 of 2024(3) dt.26-11-2024 2/2 prefer an appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956. 3.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order dated 1.10.2024, by filing appropriate appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1956, however, seeks some protection during the interregnum period. Liberty, so sought, is granted.

4.

It is needless to state that for a period of six weeks from today, status quo, existing as on today qua the land/house of the petitioner in question, shall be maintained, in order to enable him to file appropriate appeal and seek interim relief. 5.

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

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U