IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11856 of 2008 Ramdeo Bind, son of Butai Bind, Resident of Village- Basdeva, P.O. Jagdishpur, P.S. Nautan, District- Siwan ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 3. The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms (D.C.L.R. Siwan. 4. The Circle Officer, Mairwa, District- Siwan 5. The Block Development Officer, Nautan, District- Siwan 6. Munni Devi, wife of Ashok Yadav, the Present Mukhiya of Mairwa Gram Panchayat. 7. Ashok Yadav S/o Chandrika Yadav, both respondent nos. 6 and 7 are resident of Village- Basdeva, P.O. Jagdishpur, P.S. Nautan, District- Siwan ------ Respondents. -------- 2. 21.11.2008 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar No.1 for the petitioner, and Mr. Niraj Kumar, learned Junior counsel to Government Pleader No.17 for the respondents. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the order dated 19.6.2008 (Annexure-6), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Mairwa, whereby he has directed that the land in question shall be restored to its old position of a tank and for beautification purposes. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It relates to Plot nos. 538 and 539, appertaining to Khata no. 214, situate at Village- Basdeva, Thana no.6, covering an area of 1 acre, 13 kathas and 12 dhurs, and 2 acres, 16 Kathats and 10 dhurs, respectively. It appears that it was recorded as Gairmazarua Malik in the survey Khatiyan 2 and vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The petitioner thereafter occupied the land and started using it. The petitioner made attempt for settlement of the land in question. The Circle Inspector submitted his report dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure-3), wherein he stated that the petitioner has forcibly occupied the same, and has changed its nature and user. He, however, recommended for settlement of the land in question in his favour. The same was approved by the learned Anchal Adhikari by his report dated 17.11.2006 (Annexure-4). It appears that this was followed by the impugned order, whereby the land in question is sought to be restored to his old position of public land as a tank and for beautification purposes. 3. It is thus evident that the petitioner is in forcible occupation of the same which seems to be recently acquired, as is manifest from the order dated 14.12..1995 (Annexure-2) of the learned Anchal Adhikari, passed in Settlement Case No. 30 of 1995- 1996 (Shri Ramdeo Bind). He has recorded as follows on 14.12.1995 (Annexure-2): “LFky tkapksijkUr va0 fu0 dk izfrosnu izkIr@ muds izfrosnu ds vuqlkj izLrkfor tehu iks[kj Hkh.Mk gS ftldk Lo#i vHkh ugha cnyk gS@ mUgksus mDr Hkh.Mk vkosnd ds n[ky dCts dh ckr ugha n’kkZ;h gS@” It is thus evident that the nature, character and user of the land had surely not changed, and continued to be a tank, till 14.12.1995. No settlement has been made in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, he has not acquired any enforceable right. 3 Discretionary writ jurisdiction is never exercised in favour of persons who are law-breakers who do not show respect for the rule of law and the established procedure. Law is equally well settled that unauthorized occupants can be forcibly evicted, without resorting to the due process of law. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 4. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)