IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18540 of 2022

======================================================

Ganpati Ray Son of Late Chand Ray Resident of village-Rasalpur, P.O.-

Rasalpur P.S.-Bajpatti, District-Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of

Revenue and Land reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land reforms,

Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Collector, Sitamarhi.

4.

The Additional Collector, Revenue and Land reforms, Sitamarhi.

5.

The D.C.L.R., Pupari, Sitamarhi.

6.

The Block Development Officer, Bajpatti, Sitamarhi.

7.

The Circle Officer, Bajpatti, Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Sri Krishna Ranjan, Advocate

Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam ( AAG- 12 )

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

=====================================================

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the

Chief Justice/ Hon’ble Judges through Video Conferencing from

their residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the

Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from

their residences/offices.)

=====================================

Date : 20-01-2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18540 of 2022 dt.20-01-2023

2/8

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

Patna High Court CWJC No.18540 of 2022 dt.20-01-2023

3/8

Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition

stating that the petition is misconceived; raises disputed

Patna High Court CWJC No.18540 of 2022 dt.20-01-2023

4/8

question of fact; is not in public interest; and that the issue can

be best resolved at the local level by the appropriate authorities.

We find that petitioner has an alternative remedy,

equally efficacious in term of and under the provisions of the

Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

Confronted as to why the petitioner has not taken

recourse to such remedies, we see no answer forthcoming.

We see that the present petition is in the nature of

private interest litigation and not public interest litigation,

inasmuch as dispute between the private parties stands

highlighted. As such, we refrain from issuing any notice.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs.

Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2

SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:-

“34. The learned counsel for the parties

addressed us on the question of the bona fides of

Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We

leave this question open and do not express any

opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision

of the High Court in this regard.

35. However, we note that generally speaking,

procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in

public interest litigation. This Court held in Rural

Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.

[Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of

U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] to this effect as follows:

(SCC p. 515, para 16)

“16. The writ petitions before us are not inter

parties disputes and have been raised by way of

public interest litigation and the controversy

before the court is as to whether for social safety

and for creating a hazardless environment for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18540 of 2022 dt.20-01-2023

5/8

people to live in, mining in the area should be

permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to

have said that for public interest litigations,

procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it

has to be remembered that every t