Patna High Court
Sitaram PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
Since the State authorities have taken concrete steps to comply with the earlier direction, no further contempt order is required.
Summary
The petitioner filed a contempt application alleging that the State of Bihar failed to comply with a May 10, 2024 order in CWJC No.13692/2022 directing removal of encroachments from a water body. The State submitted a supplementary show‑cause stating that an encroachment clearance drive was conducted on November 26, 2025, demolishing illegal structures, rehabilitating affected families with fresh parchas, and providing purchase receipts under the Government Awas Yojana. The court examined these statements and concluded that the State had taken concrete steps towards compliance with the original direction. Consequently, the court held that no further order was necessary in the contempt proceedings, directing the State to complete any remaining actions within six months. The contempt application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the State's actions amount to contempt of the earlier court order directing removal of encroachments from the water body.
- Whether the court should issue any further directions in the contempt proceedings.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- water body encroachment
- rehabilitation
- government scheme
- compliance with writ order
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3967 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13692 of 2022
======================================================
Sitaram Prasad Vishundev Prasad Resident of Village Sonsa P.S. Rahui
District-Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Amrit Lal Meena the Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Dr. S. Siddharth the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Santosh Kumar Mall, the Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Mayank Warwade, the Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
5. Shashank Shubhankar, the District Magistrate Nalanda.
6. Kajle Vaibhav Nitin, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda.
7. Mano Kumar Prasad, the Circle Officer, Rahui, Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, A.G.
Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AG
Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4
Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AC to AAG-4
Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, AC to AAG-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
5 05-01-2026 The present contempt application has been preferred
against the order dated 10.05.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
13692 of 2022, whereby a direction was issued for removal of
encroachment from the water body, which was occupied by
Patna High Court MJC No.3967 of 2024(5) dt.05-01-2026
2/4
certain persons to whom parchas had been issued. While
passing the said order, the Writ Court had categorically observed
that no construction could be permitted over a water body,
irrespective of the fact that parchas had been issued by the State
Government. In pursuance thereof, the present contempt
application has been preferred.
2. A supplementary show-cause has been filed on
behalf of Respondent No. 5, wherein the following statements
have been made in Paragraph Nos.- 15,16,17,18 & 19:-
“15.(i) On 26.11.2025, an encroachment
clearance drive was conducted in presence of
adequate number of magistrates and police force
and houses of 08 encroachers, which were made
over the land in question were demolished. It is
relevant to mention here that those 08 encroachers
were not eligible to be benefited under the Govt.
Awas Yojana as it is evident from letter no. 419,
dated 17.04.2024 issued by the B.D.O, Rahui.
16.(ii) It is apt to mention here that out
of 114 encroachers, who were found eligible for
grant of benefit of Govt. Awas Yojana, 44 were
already approved earlier and Purcha of the
homestead lands were provided to them. Out of
remaining 70 encroachers 02 were found dead and
68 encroachers were provided Bandobast Purcha on
25.11.2025, who received the same and put their
signatures voluntarily in support of their receiving
as it is evident from the receipt dated 25.11.2025.
17. All 112 beneficiaries of Govt. Awas
Yojana were asked to submit requisite documents
Patna High Court MJC No.3967 of 2024(5) dt.05-01-2026
3/4
including passbooks for providing them amount for
Awas Yojana, out of them 30 families have already
submitted the required documents for getting benefit
for the same, as it is made clear from the report vide
letter no. 1801, dated 26.11.2025 submitted by the
B.D.O, Rahui.
18. That in view of the facts as stated
above it appears that delay in compliance of the
undertaking given in C.W.J.C. No. 13692/2022 was
not intentional rather it occurred in the process
undertaken by the authorities concerned in
accordance with law as well as the Govt. policy.
Moreover, all the eligible encroachers have received
the Bandobast Purcha and 30 of them have
submitted their requisite documents for Awas Yojana
and rest are under the process of doing the same.
Thereafter, subsequent action will be taken in
accordance with Govt. policy.
19. That in view facts of the and
circumstances as stated above it is stated submitted
and that no of the order of the violation Hon'ble
Court has behalf of the been made on and O.Ps all
necessary steps have been taken for compliance of
the direction/orders of the court.”
3. Considering the statements made in the
supplementary show-cause, it is evident that the State
authorities have already taken concrete steps for removal of
encroachments from the water body. The persons who were
earlier settled in and around the water body have been
rehabilitated by issuance of fresh parchas on alternative land
Patna High Court MJC No.3967 of 2024(5) dt.05-01-2026
4/4
under the relevant rehabilitation scheme.
4. In view of the fact that necessary steps have already
been taken by the Respondent-State for protection of the water
body in question, we are of the considered opinion that no
further order is required to be passed in the present contempt
proceedings. However, it is expected that the Respondents shall
complete the remaining exercise, if any, at the earliest and
preferably within a period of six months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present
contempt application stands disposed of.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sachin/-
U
Checking your session…