IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7299 of 2002 SUNIL KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners :Mr.Umesh Prasad singh,Sr.Adv. Mr.Amod Kumar,Advocate. For the Housing Board:Mr.Rajiv Narayan Singh,Adv. Mr.Dwijendra mishra,Adv. For Respondsent No.5 :Mr.S.Brat, J.C.to AAG-3. 10 9.5.2008 Petitioners claim to be in possession of land , which was proposed to be acquired and subsequently released from the ambit of acquisition. In order to establish the same, they have approached the civil court. In a public interest litigation, this Court issued a direction upon the then Patna Regional Development Authority (in short, “PRDA”) to remove encroachment from public places. In terms of Section 85A of the P.R.D.A.Act, it was well within the competence of PRDA to remove encroachment from public road. Contending that the petitioners are on public road and, accordingly, have encroached the same, PRDA has taken steps to remove encroachment alleged to have been made by the petitioners on public road. In the instant writ petition, there is no dispute about release of the land, being the subject matter of the suit, in favour of petitioners from the ambit of acquisition and, accordingly, withdrawal of acquisition of that land from the acquisition proceeding initiated to acquire the same is not in dispute. It may be possible that in addition to that land, petitioners have encroached upon a part of the land used or proposed to be used for construction of road. In view of annulment of the PRDA Act, while the PRDA does not exist, its successor does not have the power, provided originally under Section 85A of the PRDA Act. The State Government, who is a defendant in the suit, after having accepted release of the land in question, may have taken such defence in the suit or 2 may in future take such defence in the suit as it may be advised, but if it is the contention of the State that the petitioners have encroached beyond the land, being the subject matter of the suit, it would be appropriate on the part of the State to approach the suit court to obtain clarification in regard thereto from the suit court before taking steps to remove the alleged encroachment. As respecter of law it is expected that the State would abide by the judgment of the suit court in relation to the subject matter of the suit. It is claimed that the suit court has passed an order of status quo and if that be so, it would be appropriate on the part of the State, a party to the suit, to honour such order of status quo and not to rush on the basis of some obserations made by a Division Bench of this Court. It goes without saying that in addition to taking defence or defences as has been taken in the written statement, it shall be open to the State to take such other defence or defences or such other step or steps in relation to the subject matter of the suit as also in relation to alleged encroachment beyond the subject matter of the suit in accordance with law. With the observations as above, we dispose of the writ petition and request the State and its machinery not to take further steps as was complained of in the writ petition. Jay/ (Barin Ghosh,J) (C.M.Prasad,J)