Patna High Court
Smt Anjila Devi @ Anjial DeviversusShailendra Singh @ Shailendra Kumar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as the stay order is neither perverse nor palpably unreasonable.
Summary
The appellant, Smt Anjila Devi, appealed a order of the Single Judge that granted an eight‑week stay maintaining the status quo on her pucca house, which a Circle Officer had ordered to be removed as an encroachment. She contended that the matter should be dealt with under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and that the writ court should not have intervened. The Single Judge had allowed the stay to enable the petitioner to seek an alternative remedy. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the stay order was perverse or palpably unreasonable. Finding no such defect and noting that the eight‑week period had elapsed, the Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. Consequently, the order of the Single Judge stands and any interlocutory applications are disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Single Judge erred in granting an eight‑week stay of the notice to remove the encroached pucca house.
- Whether the specific provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, preclude the issuance of a writ in this circumstance.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Writ of Certiorari
- Writ of Mandamus
- Stay Order
- Encroachment
- Public Land
- Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act
- Status Quo
- Unreasonable Order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.66 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18955 of 2024
======================================================
Smt Anjila Devi @ Anjial Devi, Wife of Sri Parmanand Singh, Resident of
Village-Ramchandrapur, Ward No. 8,P.O. - Ramchandrapur, P.S. - Pipariya,
District - Lakhisarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Shailendra Singh @ Shailendra Kumar Son of Late Arjun Singh, Resident of
Village- Ramchandrapur, Ward No. 8, P.O. Ramchandrapur, P.S. Pipariya,
District -Lakhisarai.
2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secrerary, Revenue and Land
Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Lakhisarai.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahanpur, Pipariya, District – Lakhisarai.
5. The Circle Officer, Mahanpur, Pipriya, Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sushant Praveer, Advocate
Mr. Aayush Abhishek, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3 29-01-2026 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Smt.
Anjila Devi @ Anjali Devi challenging the order dated
19.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.
18955 of 2024.
The writ petition was filed by one Shailendra Singh @
Shailendra Kumar, who is respondent no.1 in this Letters Patent
Appeal, seeking for following reliefs:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.66 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
“1(i) Issuance of a writ of Certiorari or a
writ, order or direction or any other writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of
Certiorari to quash the important notice
(Khas-Suchna) as issued vide Memo No.1101,
dated 19.11.2024 under signature of
Respondent No.4 (Annexure P-5) whereby
and whereunder the Petitioner has been
directed to remove his pucca house with
boundary wall situated at Khata No. 1632,
Khesra No.3312 Rakawa (measuring) 9
decimal given therein reference No. C.W.J.C
No.1531 of 2024 (Anjila Devi Vs The State of
Bihar and Ors.) and MJC No. 3480 of 2024,
with a direction to vacate the encroached
area till 21.11.2024, otherwise administration
will vacate the place forcibly.
(ii) Issuance of a writ of Mandamus or a writ,
order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the Respondent No. 4 not
to disturb the pucca house with boundary
wall of the Petitioner as mentioned in
aforesaid Notice contained in Memo No. 1101
dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-5).
(iii) Issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ as
ad interim relief stay the operation of the
aforesaid important notice (Khas-Suchana) as
issued vide Memo No. 1101 dated 19.11.2024
Patna High Court L.P.A No.66 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
under signature of Respondent No.4 with
direction to remove the Encroachment of the
pakka house with boundary wall of the
Petitioner situated at Khata no.1632, Khesara
No.3312.”
2. It appears that when the matter was taken up on
19.12.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ
petition sought for liberty to avail the alternative remedy in
accordance with law and further sought for some protection
during the interregnum period. Accordingly, the Court disposed
of the writ petition, however, observed that for a period of eight
weeks from the date of passing the order i.e. 19.12.2024, status
quo existing as on that day qua the land/house of the petitioner
of the writ petition shall be maintained in order to enable him to
take appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when
specific provisions are available for the writ petitioner under the
Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, the learned Single
Judge should not have passed the impugned order granting stay
for eight weeks.
4. Needless to say that the period of eight weeks is
already over and it is not known whether the writ petitioner has
taken recourse to any remedy in accordance with law for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.66 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
challenging the Memo No. 1101 dated 19.11.2024 of the Circle
Officer, Mahanpur, Pipariya, Lakhisarai or not. The order seems
to have been passed, since the petitioner stated that there was
pucca house with boundary wall existing in the land in question
in respect of which direction has been issued for removal of the
pucca house.
5. In view of the limited scope of interference in the
Letters Patent Appeal, since we do not find any perversity or
palpable unreasonableness in the impugned order, we are not
inclined to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal, which
accordingly stands dismissed.
6. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ.)
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
Jyoti Kumari/-
U
Checking your session…