IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3492 of 2010 SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA, SON OF SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-BAKAROUR, P.S-BODH GAYA, DISTRICT-GAYA……………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GAYA, DISTRICT- GAYA. 3. THE SUB -DIVISIONAL OFFICER GAYA, DISTRICT- GAYA. 4 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BODH GAYA, DISTRICT-GAYA. 5. SMT. LAKHIYA DEVI W/O MANGAL CHAND PRASAD. 6. SUDAMA PRASAD @ SUDAMA KUMAR, S/O MANGAL CHAND PRASAD. BOTH RESIDENT OF BODH GAYA PACHHATTI, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT-GAYA. …RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate For the State-respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, S C-21. ----------- 02. 03.03.2010 The petitioner describing himself as pro bono publico has preferred the present petition for removal of encroachment of the public land. Be it noted, one Sudama Prasad @ Sudama Kumar had preferred CWJC No.14496 of 2008 in respect of the self same land and the learned Single Judge of this court after adverting to the pleadings put forth in the case had passed the following order:- “The petitioner claims to be settled for certain lands in the vicinity of Bodhgaya through Bhudan - 2 - Yagya Committee. He alleges that the settlement was made in favour of his mother in the year 1955 and submits that he has been in continuous possession since then. Petitioner apprehends eviction at the hands of the State. State, on the other hand, points out that these lands were never settled by the Bhudan Yagya Committee to the petitioner. The facts are in great controversy, which this court, in fact, is not to resolve in its summary jurisdiction. Petitioner may be well advised to establish his right, title and interest through the process of Civil Court where such disputes could be resolved. It is needless to say that State would not act arbitrarily to dispossess a person even if his possession is wrongful, subject to his possession having been established. State would take recourse to law before dispossessing even an illegal occupant.” It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil action has been initiated by the 5th respondent Smt. Lakhiya Devi, wife of Mangal Chand Prasad but despite no injunction being granted she continues to be in possession. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is quit vivid that he had declined to pass any order of dispossession and had observed that appropriate steps are to be taken in accordance with law. Once such an order has come to be passed, we are afraid, we cannot issue any direction in this public interest litigation despite the indefatigable spirit reflected by the petitioner. Needless to emphasize, we have not expressed any - 3 - opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)