IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4822 of 2002 1. Dineshwar Pathak, s/o Late Bachha Pathak. 2. Radha Raman Pathak, S/o Sri Ram Bachan Pathak. 3. Jitendra Kumar Pathak, S/o Yamuna Pathak. 4. Bihari Pathak, S/o Late Chatura Nand Pathak. 5. Devendra Pathak, S/o Sri Krishna Nand Pathak. 6. Ram Chandra Pathak, S/o Sri Jagarnath Pathak. 7. Baijnath yadav, S/o Sri Sarju Yadv. 8. Radhika Raman Pathak, S/o Sri Gobind Pathak. 9. Ajay Kumar Pathak, S/o Sri Yamuna Pathak. 10. Shankar Pathak, S/o Late Bidya Nand Pathak. 11. Gobind Pathak, S/o Late Chaturanand Pathak. 12. Birendra Kumar Pathak, S/o Sri Yamuna Pathak. 13. Ram Krit Ram, S/o Sri Janakraj Ram. 14. Raghunath Thakur, S/o Late Chirkut Thakur. 15. Sachidanand Pathak, S/o Late Gouri Shankar Pathak. All residents of Village-Semri Pathak, P.O.-Raipurchore, P.S.- Baddi (Shiv Sagar), District- Rohtas, Sasaram. ………………………………………………………… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sasaram. 4. The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Sasaram. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Sheosagar (Rohtas). 6. Jagdish Pathak, S/o Late Ram Beyas Pathak. 7. Lal Bechan Bind, S/o Late Basant Bind. 8. Ramdeo Bind, S/o Late Siti Bind. 9. Murtanjay Pathak, S/o Late Rajeshwar Pathak. All residents of village-Semri Pathak, P.O.-Raipur Chore, P.S.- Beddi (Sheosagar), District- Rohtas. ……………………………………………………. Respondents. ----------- 4. 16.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner in this writ application has made a prayer to the following effect : - “That this application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ / writs, 2 direction/ directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to implement its order dated 16.6.97 passed by the Circle Officer Sheosagar (Rohtas) by removing the encroachment made by the private respondents upon Khata no. 65, Plot no. 219, 231 area 03 decimals and 6 decimals respectively total 09 decimals as it is mentioned as a Anabad Bihar Sarkar in the revisional survey.” The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application therefore is confined to removal of certain encroachment which according to the petitioner was directed by the Circle Officer, the Collector under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, himself by an order dated 16.6.1997 (Annexure 2 to the writ application). From Annexure 2, an order dated 16.6.1997 passed in Encroachment Case No. 6/1996-97, all that appears is that an order was passed for removal of encroachment only in plot No. 231 area 0.06 decimals. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to removal of encroachment on plot no. 219 must be rejected. 3 Even in respect of removal of encroachment on plot no. 231 this Court would find that four persons were found to be encroacher of the land namely Jagdish Pathak, Lal Bachan Bind, Ramdeo Bind and Murtanjay Pathak and to whom notices were issued on 20.6.1997 by the Anchal Adhikari for removal of the alleged encroachment. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in paragraph no.7 it has been mentioned that plot no. 231 is in possession of one Ram Avtar Ram and Dasrath Ram, who have been settled such land in Case No. 1/1995-96 and Case No. 2/1995-96 and have been also given assistance from the State for construction of house under Indira Awas Sceme. That being so, this Court would find hardly any scope to allow the prayer in this writ application because plot no. 231 is a Government land on which the Government could have made any construction. Thus when the government had chosen to settle such government land plot no. 231 to Ram Autar Ram and Dashrath Ram, who are also not party respondent to this writ petition, the 4 petitioners can not get relief even in respect of plot no. 231. In that view of the matter, this application is found to be wholly without substance and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/