IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13627 of 2010 1. RAJNISH KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI LALAN SINGH R/O MOHALLA- SURKHIKAL, TILKAMANJHI, DISTRICT AT BHAGALPUR ...... PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 4. THE S.D.O., BHAGALPUR 5. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHAGALPUR 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, JAGDISHPUR, BHAGALPUR 7. RAM KRISHNA ASRAM JOGSAR, BHAGALPUR …… RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anupa Nand Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Din Bandhu Singh, G.P. IX For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. N.D.Choubey, Advocate ----- 8 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7, the institution described as Ram Krishna Ashram, Jogsar, Bhagalpur. The prayer in this public interest litigation is in essence to remove alleged encroachment by respondent no. 7 upon a part of Sandy’s Compound in Bhagalpur close to or connected with a structure, which has been described as Cleveland Memorial. According to the petitioner the said memorial should be maintained only as a memorial and should not be used for unauthorized 2 purposes like running a school etc. as is being done by respondent no. 7. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that by Annexure 3, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of a public interest litigation on 12.4.2005, whereby a museum situated in Sandy’s Compound, Bhagalpur was directed to be shifted to another place so that Sandy’s Compound is made free from encroachment or future unauthorized construction. Some other structures such as stadium, P.H.E.D. Power House, Sulabh Sauchalaya and the old clubs were spared by this Court and were not ordered to be removed because they were found necessary for the healthy development of the area. The stand of respondent no. 7 is that it was entrusted with the management and supervision of a children park by the side of the monument described as Cleveland Memorial and it was also permitted to run a school at that place in the rooms already constructed and hence the possession of respondent no. 7 on the basis of alleged permission by District Magistrate, Bhagalpur in 1982 is not unauthorized. It is the case of respondent no. 7 that he is not an encroacher and the arrangement made by 3 the District Magistrate has not been undone so far. From the records it is clear that as per an inquiry held by the S.D.O., whose report is Annexure 4/A, the occupation of some part of Sandy’s Compound by respondent no. 7 has been treated as an encroachment upon public land unauthorized by law because the land is Khas Mahal land and the process for settlement of Khas Mahal has never been adopted. Pursuant to such report, admittedly a proceeding for removal of encroachment of public land has been initiated by Encroachment Case No. 3 of 2009-10 and is pending before respondent no. 6, the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur, Bhagalpur. According to learned counsel for the State respondent no. 7 appeared in that proceeding but subsequently he has adopted delaying attitude and hence that proceeding could not be carried to its logical conclusion and the encroachment found could not be removed because of an order to stay the encroachment proceeding passed by Vice Chairman of Bihar Minorities Commission, respondent no. 9, a copy of that order dated 18.2.2010 has been annexed as Annexure 10. A perusal of the order of the Bihar State Minorities Commission shows 4 that the Commission is not aware about implication of statutory provision in the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Under the statutory provisions, the Collector under the Act has statutory power to decide and take action for removal of encroachment found on a public land. Provision of appeal etc. has to be availed by the affected parties as provided in the statute. In such circumstances we are of the considered view that Annexure 10 cannot stand in the way of statutory authority in deciding the matter relating to alleged encroachment upon a public land in accordance with law. Hence we direct the Collector, Bhagalpur to give suitable reply to the Bihar State Minorities Commission and whatever defence has been raised by the respondent no. 7 in this proceeding should be considered by the Collector, Bhagalpur, if respondent no. 7 files a representation in the matter before the Collector along with a copy of this order within two weeks. Thereafter the Collector, Bhagalpur, will decide whether the earlier arrangement allegedly made in 1982 is genuine or not and if genuine whether it requires alteration or modification for the purpose of protecting the monument 5 described as Cleveland Memorial at Jay Prakash Udyan i.e. Sandy’s Compound. Such decision shall be taken by the Collector, Bhagalpur at an early date preferably within four weeks from the date of filing of representation by the respondent no. 7. If no representation is filed then action for removal of encroachment as per statutory provision shall be taken without any delay but if representation is filed, the Collector, Bhagalpur shall take appropriate action in accordance with law so that the proceeding for removal of alleged encroachment is brought to a logical end within 6 months. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the G.P. IX, learned counsel for the State, for communication and compliance. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)