IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10789 of 2002 CHANDRAMA SAH, SON OF JAGARNATH SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHAURAW, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. ...................PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ. 4. THE L.R.D.C., GOPALGANJ. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, GOPALGANJ CIRCLE. 6. SUKATH GADDI. 7. BAKARIDI GADDI (DIED AND SUBSTITUTED U/O DT. 7.11.2003 VIDE I.A. NO. 491/2003) SONS OF LATE BHARDUL GADDI 7A. AASH MOHAMMAD@DHOLAN GADDI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAURAW, P.S. AND DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 8. KITABUDDIN GADDI, SON OF SUKATH GADDI. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHAURAW, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ...................... RESPONDENTS ----------- 11. 23.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Having heard the parties and perused the materials on record of this writ application this Court is of the firm opinion that both the authorities, namely, the original authority and the appellate authority under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act have failed in discharging their statutory duty. All that the petitioner had complained was that the certain portion of public land covering a public road was sought to be encroached by the private 2 respondents by raising certain construction. The first authority, the Anchal Adhikari, the Collector under the Act, having held that such encroachment was on public land went to justify construction on the private respondents on the ground that Indira Awas Scheme was sanctioned over such land. This Court fails to understand the logic of the original authority. A public land on which there is road cannot be encroached even for Indira Awas. The appellate authority, the Collector under the Act, has gone one step ahead. He has said that it will be for the Anchal Adhikari to find out as to whether on account of such construction of Indira Awaa only portion of public road has been encroached or not. The appellate order to say the least is not only cryptic but wholly perfunctory in the eye of law. That being so, this Court for the time being would quash the appellate order and remit the matter back to the Collector of Gopalganj district who would now hear the petitioner and private respondents and dispose of the appeal afresh by recording 3 his specific finding both on the issue of encroachment alleged on the public land and use of such public land for the purposes of road. In the event he would find that even an inch of public road has been encroached by any person he will direct for its immediate removal keeping in view what was said by the Apex Court while approving a judgment of this Court as with regard to demolition of structure of Police Station found to be existing on a public land encroaching road. The Collector of the District, therefore, would keep in mind the ratio of the judgment in the case of Kumar Vijoy Singh & anor. Vs. The State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2000(4) PLJR 794. The petitioner may approach the Collector alongwith a copy of this order and the Collector will be under an obligation to comply this order within a period of six months. With the aforementioned observation, this application stands disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 4 Surendra/