IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7910 of 2008
======================================================
1. Urmila Singh, wife of Late Birendra Kumar Singh
2. Sweta Singh, daughter of Late Birendra Kumar Singh
3. Supriti Singh, daughter of Late Birendra Kumar Singh
4. Rakesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Birendra Kumar Singh
All resident of New Area, Aurangabad, Police Station Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate -cum- Collector, Gaya
3. The Circle Officer, Town, Gaya
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh
Mr. Pankaj Kr.Das
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga10)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN)
3 20-10-2011 I.A. No.5610 of 2011 has been filed for substituting
the sole petitioner Birendra Kumar Singh, who died
on14.12.2010. The heirs of Birendra Kumar Singh are
mentioned at paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application.
I. A. No. 5610 of 2011 is allowed and the Office is
directed to substitute the name of the deceased petitioner by his
heir and legal representative as described in paragraph 2 of the
interlocutory application.
Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the State.
2 Patna High Court CWJC No.7910 of 2008 (3) dt.20-10-2011
2/3
The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 1 and 5
passed in a land encroachment proceedings, by which the
original petitioner has been asked to remove the encroachment
on Khesra No. 451 measuring 93 x 56 feet.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on the
land in question, there is a hotel which has been running for the
past 30 years. It is on the Falgu river.
Counsel for the State, on the basis of the counter
affidavit, has stated that several persons have encroached upon
the said river, which causes great difficulties during the period
when Pind Dan is performed.
Annexure 5 is the final order supposedly passed in the
encroachment proceeding. Virtually, this is a non-speaking order
as it does not take into account the show cause filed on behalf of
the original petitioner which supposedly indicates that the
original petitioner was a bonafide purchaser of the said lands.
While considering the question as to whether the
original petitioner was a bonafide title over the lands in question,
obviously, the State have to consider whether the vendors of the
original petitioner had the title over the lands in question.
All these aspects would be highlighted in the order
passed in Encroachment Case No. 10 of 2007-08.
3 Patna High Court CWJC No.7910 of 2008 (3) dt.20-10-2011
3/3
In the result, Annexures 1 and 5 are quashed and the
matter is remanded back to the Circle Officer, Town, Gaya to
hear the petitioners and pass a speaking order.
The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this
order before the Circle Officer, Town, Gaya within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, who
will dispose of the proceedings expeditiously within a period of
three months thereafter.
This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
(Sheema Ali Khan, J)
Prabhakar Anand/-