1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6309 of 2008 MADAN SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Bankey Bihari Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.A.G.9 Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate. ------------ 5 14.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the direction of the respondent no.4, Anchal Adhikari, Hisua at Nawada, to demolish the construction over the culvert made by the petitioner. Contention of learned counsel is that the piece and parcel of land, which the petitioner is enjoying is based on lease agreement entered into between the Zila Parishad and the petitioner. This lease is for the period of 10 years, entered on 25.11.2000. Contention of the petitioner is that he has been using this property through the approach built on the culvert and that is the only approach to the property for its utilization and use. If that approach or the construction on the culvert is demolished, the property cannot be utilized at all in absence of any egress or ingress. From perusal of record of this writ application, the construction over the so-called culvert has also been a matter of dispute before this Court earlier too. It seems several other 2 persons have also made construction over the culvert and when it was sought to be demolished for the reasons that it was coming in the way of easy flow of water etc. the petitioner approached this Court way back in the year 1998. After due deliberation vide a final order dated 8.2.1999, the writ application was disposed of with a categorical direction that the construction on the culvert, which was made into a double storied shall be demolished. Another observation of the Court was that similarly situated persons should be treated equally. This aspect was observed by the Court in view of the allegation made by the petitioner that ire of the respondents is directed only against him. In normal circumstance, the direction should have been enough to decide the issue and bring the matter to rest but is not so. It seems the petitioner is back to this Court again because the Circle Officer, Hisua Circle, Nawada, has directed the removal of encroachment over the said culvert. Contention of the petitioner is that the Circle Officer is forcing the order without taking into consideration all the aspects in this regard. In the counter affidavit which have been filed on 3 behalf of the respondents they do not deny the petitioner has a right to enjoy the property under lease, which is 35/10 feet land for which he is paying rent of Rs. 200/- per month, but, it is also a fact that the approach to the shop in question has to be from a public land may be over a culvert. This writ application is being disposed of with a direction upon the Circle Officer, Hisua, Nawada, as well as Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nawada, that they shall re- examine the matter in the light of the decision and adjudication made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9374/1998, contained in the order dated 8.2.1999. Further, if it is a fact that the action has been taken against the petitioner without giving an opportunity or liberty to show cause the authority will have to reconsider. Let the matter to be heard afresh on a notice to the petitioner, who shall appear before the Circle Officer within four weeks from today and proper re-adjudication of the issue shall be made by them after due verification and inspection of the property in question. The writ application stands disposed for an early decision in the matter. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)