IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15360 of 2005 1.Ram Nath Singh son of Late Sheo Lochan Singh. 2. Nand Kishdore Singh son of Vishwanath Singh. Both residents of village-Semariadeo, P.S. Karagahar, District-Rohtas. ……… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate,Rohtas at Sasaram. 3. The Anchaladhikari Karagahar, District- Rohtas. 4.Ramadhar Ram, both sons of Late Lochan Ram. 5.Basudeo Ram 6.Sanchi Ram. 7..Hanchi Ram. 8.Ram Raj Ram 9.9. Manchi Ram. 10.Kedart Ram son of Feku Ram. 11. Jagropan Ram son f Tengari Ram. 12.Badalu Mian son f Jamir Mian. 13.Kitabu Nut, sons of Ali Hussain Nut. 14.Nasrulla Nut 15. Issue Nut 16.Jumma Nut son of Nahu Nut. 17. Sahabu Sai son of Jumrati Sai. 18. Islam Sai, son of Sahibu Sai. 19. Ashik Husssain Sai son of Ash Mohammad Sai, All residents of village-Samarideo, P.S. Karagahar, District- Rohtas. …….. Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 30.11..2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The writ petition has been filed for commanding the respondents no. 1 to 3 to implement the order dated 06.1.1986 passed by Anchal Adhikari, Karagahar, District- Rotas in Encroacment Case No. 12 of 85-86 by which he has directed for removal of encroachment made by respondent nos. 4 to 19 over Public land appertaining to R.S.Khata No. 282, R.S. 2 Plot No. 1168 measuring an area of 8786 Sq. Feet situated in Mauza Semarideo, P.S.- Karagahar, District- Rohtas. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after following the due and prescribed procedure, Anchal Adhikari had passed an order dated 06.1.1986 directing the respondents no. 4 to 19 for removal of encroachment made upon Government land. He submits that even after the order having attained finality and not challenged before any competent Court of law, the same could not be implemented by the official respondents. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that from the averments made in the counter affidavit it appears that later on a resolution was passed by the Gram Sabha, in which one of the petitioners is also a signatory by which the authorities have been requested to let the private respondents remain since the persons involved are land less /homeless. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply submits even if such a resolution is there, the same is nonest in the eyes of law, since it is illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by learned 3 counsel for the petitioner. The official authorities are directed to act in accordance with law. The resolution of the Pachayat, if any, and the recommendation cannot be taken as overriding the legal position which stipulates that encroachment of government/public land cannot be sustained. If they feel that there is any provision for handing over the land to such persons then the lands can be settled. In view of the aforesaid till the lands are not finally settled with those persons, who are landless the authorities have to ensure that no encroachment remains on the same. Accordingly, let the District Magistrate, Rohtas look into the matter and take appropriate action in view of the discussions made hereinabove. The said exercise shall be taken to its logical conclusion within four months from the receipt /production of a copy of this order upon the District Magistrate. Sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)