Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 264
PATNA HIGH COURT
Dipak Misra and Mihir Kumar Jha JJ.
Sandeep Kumar Verma Son Of Sheo Shankar Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar
CWJC No. 3492 of 2010
Decided On : MARCH 3, 2010
The petitioner should establish his right, title, and interest through the process of Civil Court in cases of disputed land possession.
Headnote:
encroachment - public land - The court declined to issue any direction for removal of encroachment of public land, emphasizing that appropriate steps are to be taken in accordance with the law and that the petitioner should establish his right, title, and interest through the process of Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for the removal of encroachment of public land, claiming to be settled for certain lands in the vicinity of Bodh Gaya through Bhudan Yagya Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to issue any direction for removal of encroachment, stating that appropriate steps are to be taken in accordance with the law and that the petitioner should establish his right, title, and interest through the process of Civil Court.
Issues: The main issue was the removal of encroachment of public land and the petitioner's claim of settlement for certain lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that appropriate steps are to be taken in accordance with the law and that the petitioner should establish his right, title, and interest through the process of Civil Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
1. The petitioner describing himself as pro bono publico has preferred the present petition for removal of encroachment of the public land.
2. Be it noted, one Sudama Prasad @ Sudama Kumar had preferred CWJC No. 14496 of 2008 in respect of the selfsame land and the learned Single Judge of this court after adverting to the pleadings put forth in the case had passed the following order:
"The petitioner claims to be settled for certain lands in the vicinity of Bodh Gaya through Bhudan Yagya Committee. He alleges that the settlement was made in favour of his mother in the year 1955 and submits that he has been in continuous possession since then. Petitioner apprehends eviction at the hands of the State. State, on the other hand, points out that these lands were never settled by the Bhudan Yagya Committee to the petitioner. The facts are in great controversy, which this court, in fact, is not to resolve in its summary jurisdiction. Petitioner may be well advised to establish his right, title and interest through the process of Civil Court where such disputes could be resolved. It is needless to say that State would not act arbitrarily to dispossess a person even if his possession is wrongful, subject to his possession having been established. State would take recourse to law before dispossessing even an illegal occupant."
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil action has been initiated by the 5th respondent Smt. Lakhiya Devi, wife of Mangal Chand Prasad but despite no injunction being granted she continues to be in possession.
4. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is quite vivid that he had declined to pass any order of dispossession and had observed that appropriate steps are to be taken in accordance with law. Once such an order has come to be passed, we are afraid, we cannot issue any direction in this public interest litigation despite the indefatigable spirit reflected by the petitioner.
5. Needless to emphasize, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
6. The writ petition is disposed of ccordingly.
