Patna High Court
Ram Nivas Kumar @ Gappu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, directing the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act within 30 days and staying any removal of encroachment until such appeal is decided.
Summary
Ram Nivas Kumar filed a writ petition challenging final notices issued by the Circle Officer under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, which directed him to remove an alleged encroachment on 0.8 decimal of land. The State argued that the petitioner had been served notice under Section 3(1) and failed to file a rejoinder affidavit, justifying the final order under Section 6(1). The petitioner contended that no response could be filed because he could not be contacted. The Court, having earlier granted an interim stay, disposed of the writ by ordering the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 11 of the Act within 30 days and stayed any coercive steps for removal until the appeal is decided. The order also directed the District Magistrate to hear the appeal and pass a reasoned order within four months.
Issues considered
- Whether the final notice issued under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act is valid despite the petitioner not filing a rejoinder affidavit.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay on removal of the alleged encroachment pending an appeal under Section 11 of the Act.
- Whether the Court can direct the petitioner to file an appeal within a specified time and stay execution of the removal order.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 — s. 11, 3(1), 6(1), 6(2)
Subjects
- land encroachment
- public land
- Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act
- Section 6
- Section 11
- stay order
- appeal
- writ jurisdiction
- interim relief
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2500 of 2024
======================================================
Ram Nivas Kumar @ Gappu Singh Son of Late Kanhaiya Prasad Singh,
Resident of Village - Surajpur P.O. - Nalanda, P.S. - Nalanda, District -
Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner Patna Division, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda.
4. The Circle Officer, Silao, District - Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Chandra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate 05
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2026 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against
the final notice dated 10.10.2023, 04.12.2023, and 02.02.2024
issued by the Circle Officer, Silao, District Nalanda, under
Section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as the Act), by which the petitioner was
directed to remove the encroachment over the land bearing
Khesra No. 2824, Thana No. 423 at Village Surajpur, having an
area of 0.8 decimal.
2. This court, vide order, dated 15.02.2024, granted
interim order in favor of the petitioner, to the extent that during
pendency of this writ petition, no coercive steps shall be taken
against the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2500 of 2024(4) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
respondent/State, stating therein that notice to the encroachers
were issued under Section 3(1) of the Act with direction to
appear and file their respective replies. The encroachers did not
take trouble to appear and submit a reply with documents in
support of their claim and a further chance was given to the
encroachers issuing notice in Prapatra 1 with direction to file
their explanation/showcause. But nobody appeared even after
the second notice and then final order was passed by the
Competent Authority under section 6(1) of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the state, referring to notice
issued to the petitioner, under Section 3 of the Act annexed with
the counter affidavit, submits that notice was received by the
son of the petitioner, namely Nishant Kumar on 17.09.2021.
Despite time having been granted to the petitioner to file
rejoinder affidavit, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
despite several efforts made by him to contact the petitioner, he
did not receive any response from the side of the petitioner, as
such, rejoinder affidavit could not be filed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of dispute, the present writ application is
disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under
Patna High Court CWJC No.2500 of 2024(4) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
Section 11 of the Act, before the District Magistrate, Nalanda,
within a period of 30 days from today. If the appeal is preferred
by the petitioner within the aforesaid time along with
condonation of delay petition, the District Magistrate, Nalanda,
shall consider the same on its own merit, after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned
persons, and shall dispose the appeal by a speaking and
reasoned order within a period of four months from the date of
filing of the appeal. It is made clear that till the disposal of
appeal by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, no steps for removal
of encroachment from the subject land shall be taken by the
respondent/authorities.
6. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the
present writ application is disposed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U
Checking your session…