IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2445 of 2006 RAJESH KUMAR SINGH @ BINAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE NIRU SINGH @ NARENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PRITHVIPUR P.S. KADAMKUAN DISTT. PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, PATNA SADAR. P.S. AND DISTT. PATNA. 3. VICE-CHAIRMAN, PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MAURYA LOK, P.S. AND DISTT. PATNA. With CWJC No.2652 of 2006 ANIL KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR PD. SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA EAST LOHANIPUR, PRITHVI RAJ PATH, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTT. PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 3. THE LRDC, PATNA SADAR. With CWJC No.2747 of 2006 RAM NARESH SINGH SON OF LATE NATHUNI SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA EAST LOHANIPUR, PRITHVIRAJ PATH, P.S. KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, PATNA SADAR, PATNA. 4. CIRCLE OFFICER, PATNA SADAR, PATNA. With CWJC No.3388 of 2006 1. SMT.SHAIL KUMARI DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RAVI SHANKAR SINHA. 2. SMT. RAM PIYARI DEVI WIFE OF LATE NAND KISHORE SINGH, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JURAWANPUR, RAMAPUR, P.S. JURAWANPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA LOHANIPUR WEST, CHANDEL NIWAS, P.S. KADAMKUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SADAR PATNA. 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, SADAR PATNA. With CWJC No.2009 of 2006 - 2 - CHITRASEN SINGH @ CHITRASEN SON OF LATE DHRUP SINGH, RESIDENT OF KATHPUL ROAD, WEST LOHANIPUR, POLICE STATION KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, PATNA. 3. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, PATNA. 4. THE ANCHALADHIKARI, PATNA SADAR, PATNA. With CWJC No.2038 of 2006 KAMESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SAHDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF KATHPUL ROAD, WEST LOHANIPUR, POLICE STATION KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, PATNA. 3. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, PATNA. 4. THE ANCHALADHIKARI, PATNA SADAR, PATNA. With CWJC No.2104 of 2006 SARBESH NARAYAN SINGH SON OF LATE RAM BAHADUR SINGH, RESIDENT OF RAILWAY HUNDER ROAD, EAST LOHANIPUR, P.S. AND P.O. KADAM KUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNEMNT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, PATNA SADAR. 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, PATNA SADAR. 5. SRI RAM NARESH RAM SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTED AS THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, PATNA SADAR. 6. SRI RAI BAHADUR GUPTA SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER POSTED AS THE AMIN, PATNA ANCHAL, DISTRICT PATNA. 7. SRI KRISHNA KUMAR SINHA SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, KAHOONGO, ANCHAL PATNA. For the petitioners : M/s Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Adv., Binod Bihari Singh, Ajit Kr. Singh, Avinash, Arjun Pd. Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. B.M.P. Sihna, AAG-13, A.K. Verma, AC to AAG-13. ----------- 04. 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and AAG-13 for the State. - 3 - 2. Petitioners are the resident of Lohanipur area in the town of Patna. They have filed these writ applications questioning the order dated 24.1.2006 passed in Encroachment Case Nos.15, 27, 35, 38, 42, 45, 46 of 2005-06, whereudner in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 18.4.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1005 of 1999 and other analogous matters as also M.J.C. No.3672 of 2004, have been held to be encroachers with direction to remove encroachment from the road adjoining their house. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that impugned order dated 24.1.2006 appears to have been passed in compliance of the orders dated 18.4.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1005 of 1999 and other analogous matters but in effect the impugned order has been passed violating the directions contained in order dated 18.4.2000, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 in C.W.J.C. No.2009 of 2006. From perusal of order dated 18.4.2000 it appears that thereunder this Court asked the authorities, namely, Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Patna Sadar to identify the encroachment over Prithviraj Road, Kathpul Road and Hunder Road with reference to the municipal map and the sanctioned plan of the house situate on both the side of the aforesaid three roads but in the impugned order dated 24.1.2006 encroachment - 4 - has been identified with reference to cadastral survey map and not the municipal map as also the sanctioned plan of the petitioners. It is admitted at the Bar that all these petitioners have sanctioned plan for the construction raised by them on the two sides of the aforesaid three roads. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the impugned order dated 24.1.2006 and the notice for removal of encroachment issued on that basis the same day has been passed and issued without complying the directions of this Court contained in paragraphs- I to V at internal page 5 to 7 of order dated 18.4.2000, Annexure-1 in C.W.J.C. No.2009 of 2006. Encroachment having not been identified in compliance of the aforesaid orders of the High Court, this Court has no option but to quash order dated 24.1.2006 as also notice dated 24.1.2006 with direction to the petitioners to appear before the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation along with the copy of their sanctioned plan, order dated 18.4.2000 and this order, whereafter Municipal Commissioner shall get the aforesaid three roads measured with reference to the municipal map of the area as also the sanctioned plan of these petitioners and if there is any encroachment found over the aforesaid three roads, the Municipal - 5 - Commissioner shall pass appropriate final order directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment. Petitioners should appear before the Municipal Commissioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, whereafter the Municipal Commissioner shall get the aforesaid three roads measured within another two weeks and pass appropriate final order, as early as possible, in any case within a reasonable time not exceeding three months from the date of receipt/production of this order before him. 5. The writ application(s) are, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)