IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C.R. No.952 of 2008
MANOJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS
Versus
HIRA KANT JHA & ORS
-----------
2 8.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners are aggrieved by an order
dated 12.3.2008 whereby and whereunder the Court
below has rejected the application filed by the
petitioners as with regard to the maintainability
of the suit on the ground that the same was
clearly barred under Section 16 of Bihar Public
Land Encroachment Act, 1956, hereinafter referred
to as the „Act‟.
Counsel for the petitioners would submit that
as a matter of fact, if the plaint is read along
with its schedule-II it would become clear that
the suit has been filed in respect of a land for
which an order has been passed by the authorities
under the Act declaring the said land to be public
land. He therefore, submits that when an
application with regard to the maintainability of
the suit was raised under the provisions of Order
VII Rule, 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
Court below was duty bound to reject the plaint
and accordingly dismiss the suit.
In the opinion of this Court such submission
-2-
of the counsel for the petitioners is devoid of
any merit, Section 16 of the Act reads as
follows:-
“No suit or other legal proceeding
shall lie in any Court in respect of
any order passed under this Act”.
The aforesaid clear provision under Section
16 of the Act leaves nothing for speculation that
only such civil suits are barred which are
directly or substantially questioning any order of
the authorities passed under the Act. In the
present case, the relief which has been sought by
the plaintiff/opposite party is as follows:-
A) That on the consideration of aforesaid
facts and circumstances a decree for
declaration of title to and confirmation
of possession in favour of plaintiff
along with defendant 3rd party over suit
land i.e. schedule-II of plaint be
passed.
B) That a decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants 1st and 2nd
parties from any interference in
possession of plaintiffs over suit land
and also from changing present status-
quo of the suit land be passed.
-3-
C) That a decree of cost against defendants
be also passed.
D) That a decree for any other relief or
reliefs which the Court, deems proper
and fit be and passed in favour of
plaintiff.
In the opinion of this Court, none of the
four aforementioned reliefs sought for by the
plaintiff/opposite party in any event, questions
any order of the authority under the Act and
consequently the Court below has rightly held that
the question of maintainability of the suit on the
ground of its barred under Section 16 of the Act
is wholly misconceived and its order rejecting
such application of the petitioner does not suffer
from any jurisdictional error.
This Court in exercise of power under Section
115 would also take no different view as there is
no error in the impugned order.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision application
being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed.
BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)