IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18674 of 2009 1. SATYENDRA SHARMA @ DHAMENDRA KUMAR S/O MUNNI SINGH @ MUNNESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL- CHHOTAKI KAKO, P.S. KAKO, DISTT. JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JEHANABAD 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER JEHANABAD 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER KAKO BLOCK, DISTT. JEHANABAD 5. THE MOTHER INDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THROUGH CHANDRA SEN SINGH @ SEN SINGH S/O NATHUNI SINGH R/O VILL- ASPURA, P.S. BIKRAM, DISTT. PATNA ----------- 2 12.1.2010 Petitioner has filed this writ application for virtually permanent injunction restraining the respondent-State and its instrumentality on encroaching upon his land .He claims to be in possession of 6.5 decimals of land appertaining to Khata no. 628, plot nos. 2144,2146,2143 and 2144 and 4 decimals of land appertaining to Khata no.580, plot no. 2146 at village Chottaki Kako, District- Jehanabad. It is asserted that the said lands were purchased by the petitioner’s father and they have been in possession thereof. It is further asserted that neither in revisional survey khatian nor in revisional survey map there is any public road which is shown over these lands of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the aforesaid the State through Rural Engineering Organization are trespassing on petitioner’s land to construct a public road without either acquiring the land or without notice to the petitioner, which is wholly illegal and unconstitutional. Petitioner is said to have made representations 2 complaining about the same to different officials of the State including Circle Officer, Kako Block, District- Jehanabad but they have more interest in constructing the public road ,no one has chosen to look into the matter and are violating the rights of the petitioner. In my view, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for redressing of his grievances in view of the facts involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure , two months notice is mandatorily required to be given before such a suit could be instituted and it is only thereafter that an injunction payer would be considered. It is further submitted that if one has to wait for such a long time and further, if one has to wait for State to respond after the suit is filed before an interim injunction is granted, the whole purpose of the suit would stand defeated. In my view, the contention, as raised on behalf of the petitioner, is misconceived. A reference may be made to Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which clearly stipulates that a suit to obtain an urgent relief can be filed without notice with leave of the Court on grounds being made to dispense with notice, which is obviously the urgency of matter and irreparable injury, which is likely to be caused. The Civil Courts are not powerless to appreciate such urgency and entertain such suit without notice in such situation. Further once such suit is filed and notice of the suit is given to the Government Pleader/Government Advocate representing the State then if facts are such that irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner ,Court is 3 not powerless to grant ad interim injunction or order for maintaining of status quo if facts showing cause of irreparable injury either by way of permanent construction or demolition are pleaded. In my view, it shall be the duty of the Civil Court to permit such suit to be filed without notice and grant ad interim injunction and failure to grant such ad interim injunction on those facts would be failure to exercise their jurisdiction. Once cause is shown by the State then the Court is not powerless to vacate the ad interim injunction immediately if facts justify the same provided State co-operate in the proceedings in the Court . The Civil Court would pass ad interim injunction on well recognized principle on prima facie cause, balance of convenience and irreparable injury likely to be caused and keep in mind that an ad interim injunction, would be temporary, till cause is shown by the State can always be vacated if facts so arise. In that view of the matter , in my view, the remedy of approaching the Civil Court is adequate and efficacious. Petitioner is then not without remedy in case he does not get protection in the matter from the Civil Court ,for he has appellate and revisional remedy as well. In that view of the matter, petitioner is directed to approach the Civil Courts for proper remedy and relief at the first instance. For a period of four weeks from today, parties shall maintain status quo, which order would be subject to any order- ad interim/interim or otherwise that is passed by the Civil Court on a suit 4 being filed. While considering the matter of ad interim injunction or status quo, the Civil Court would be obliged to consider the fact that the petitioner has been protesting to the authority and the authority have chosen not to respond at all ignoring the rights and protest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the general attitude of the Civil Court is not to pass orders even of status quo in such matters even though urgency and the basic facts are clearly pleaded . That is a cause of concern to this Court as in such situation persons like the petitioner avoid moving the Civil Court and flood this Court with unnecessary litigations to protect their rights , which relief they can easily get from Civil Court virtually as a matter of course. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)