IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13890 of 2004 SURESH SINGH, Son of Late Rampati Singh, Resident of Village-Khaira, P.O.-Ushari, P.S.-Mehandia, District-Jahanabad Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The District Magistrate, Jahanabad. 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Arwal, Jehanabad. 5. The Officer Incharge, Mehandia P.S.-Jehanabad 6. Bhagwat Sharma, son of Late Chotu Sharma, Resident of Village-Khaira, P.O.-Ushari, P.S.- Mehandia, District-Jahanabad. 7. Ramuday Sharma son of Late Kameshwar P.O.- Ushari, P.S.Mehandia, District-Jehanabad 8. Surendra Sharma Son of Late Badrinath Sharma, Resident of Khaira, P.O.-Ushari, P.S.-Mehandia, District-Jehanabad ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Dileep Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Shankar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Shahab Khari, Asst. Counsel to SC-III ------------- 10. 15.04.2011 Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the light of the order dated 16.3.2001 (Annexure-2) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2779 of 2001 (Suresh Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), a proceeding under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land encroachment Act, 1956 ( in short the ‘Act’) was initiated and final order was passed for removal of the encroachment made by the private respondents, yet the order passed under the provisions of the Act is not being implemented by the concerned authorities in its 2 letters and spirit. The order dated 12.7.2003 passed by respondent District, Collector in land encroachment appeal case no. 35/DM/2003 has been brought on record as Annexure-3, which shows that appeal filed by respondent no. 6 against final order dated 9.9.2002 has been rejected and respondent no. 6 was directed to remove the encroachment from Gairmajarua Aam land, which is a public road, within a period of 30 days, failing which the said encroachment was directed to be removed by the administration by using the force. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 stating therein that the encroachment over the public road has already been removed on 20.10.2003 and a pucca construction was also demolished. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the orders passed by the original authority as also the appellate authority have not been implemented in its letters and spirit and still certain encroachment exists there on the public road. After having heard the parties, in view of the disputed question of facts, this Court is not in a position to issue any writ or direction for removal of 3 alleged encroachment made by respondent nos. 6 to 8. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved and has sufficient materials at his command to demonstrate that encroachment made by respondent nos. 6 to 8 has not been removed from the public road, then he is at liberty to file a detailed representation before respondent District Magistrate, Jehanabad raising all his grievances. If such a representation is filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, with a certified copy of the present order, raising therein all the grievances, which have been raised in the present proceeding, the respondent District Magistrate shall be obliged to look into the grievances raised on behalf of the petitioner and shall further be obliged to dispose of such representation by a speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and private respondents and all other concerned persons within a period of three months from the date of its filing. It is made clear that if no representation is filed on behalf of the petitioner within the aforesaid period of four weeks from today with a certified copy of the present order, then it shall be 4 construed that present writ petition has finally been rejected by this Court. With the aforesaid observation and direction the present writ petition stands disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)