IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4497 of 2011 1. Ram Lagan Sah 2. Om Prakash Sah Both son of late Jeera Lal Sah alias late Jiro Lal Sah, resident of village Agrail, P.S. Baligaon, District Vaishali at Hajipur. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mr. Prem Singh Meena, District Magistrate, Vaishali 3. Mr. Moti Lal Singh, Circle Officer, Patepur, District Vaishali 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Officer-in-charge, Baligaon, P.S. , District Vaishali. .. Opposite Parties ------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, A.C. to G.A.3 ------------------ 03/ 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for their alleged wilful and intentional/deliberate disobedience and violation of the order of this Court dated 26.08.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13662 of 2010, claiming that the construction is going on at the behest of local Mukhiya inspite of operation of stay granted by this Court by the aforesaid order, the conclusive part of which is as follows :- “If the petitioners file the aforesaid appeal within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order as well appellate authority, namely the Collector of Vaishali shall decide it in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal. Furthermore, if the petitioners file an interlocutory application along with the memorandum 2 of appeal for stay of the impugned order of Circle Officer dated 08.07.2010, the Collector shall decide the same within one month thereafter. Till then let the impugned order of Circle Officer dated 08.07.2010 (Annexure 4) remain stayed.” 3. It is not in dispute that the said order of the Circle Officer dated 08.07.2010 was passed in a proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) directing the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment on the land in question. Hence the petitioners were directed to file an appeal under section 11 of the Act. 4. Now the petitioners have come up with a case that they had already filed an application dated 24.08.2010 (Annexure 3) before the Collector, Vaishali, whereafter they also filed a petition dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure 3 series) before the Collector, Vaishali for taking steps in view of the specific direction of this Court, but inspite of that no heed was paid and the authorities very conveniently continued violating the order of this Court and passed order dated 06.09.2011. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that application dated 24.08.2010 filed by the petitioners before the Collector, Vaishali was merely an application prior to the order in question dated 26.08.2010 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13622 of 2010. Neither it is worded as an appeal nor even section 11 of the Act has been mentioned therein, hence it cannot be legally termed 3 as an appeal as directed by this Court. Furthermore, application dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure 3 series) is not an application in any appeal rather it is merely an application filed by the petitioners before the Collector, Vaishali informing that the Anchal Adhikari is allegedly violating the order of this Court although the claim of the petitioners was legal and proper as detailed therein. 6. In the said circumstances, neither application dated 24.08.2010 can be termed as a memorandum of appeal nor application dated 09.09.2010 can be considered as an interlocutory application filed in the said appeal. Hence the petitioners themselves having not complied the order of this Court are clearly not coming with clean hands in this petition. Furthermore, the directions to the authorities given in the order of this Court dated 26.08.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13622 of 2010 were consequent upon filing of the memorandum of appeal under section 11 of the Act and also on an interlocutory application for stay having been filed in the said appeal. The same having not been done by the petitioners, the consequential direction given by this Court to the Circle Officer did not come into effect. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)