IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15288 of 2005 Jainul Ansari son of Nizamuddin Ansari, resident of Village Nokha, P.O.-Nokha, P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas. ….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. 4. The Circle Officer, Nokha, Rohtas. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, Sasaram. 6. Haridwar Kahar son of Late Radha Kishun Kahar resident of Village+ P.O.+P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas. …..Respondents. ----------- 3. 29.11.2011 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. However, a counter affidavit on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 4 is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had to move this Court for implementation of the order dated 07.12.2001 passed in Encroachment Case No. 1/2001-02 by the Circle Officer, Nokha, Rohtas which has been affirmed by the order dated 27.02.2002 passed in Encroachment Appeal No. 1/2002 by the Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram directing for removal of encroachment from Village Nokha, Thana No. 441, Khata No. 1658, Plot No. 2300 2 measuring an area of two decimals. He submits that despite the order having attained finality, the encroachments have not been removed. The stand in the counter affidavit is that the order has been implemented and encroachment removed. In support of the same, a report of the Circle Inspector and the Officer-in-charge of Nokha Police Station has been annexed. He submits that from perusal of the same it would appear that encroachment had been removed pursuant to order passed in Encroachment Case No. 1 of 2001-02 which has also been mentioned in the report of the Circle Inspector that the encroachment done by the petitioner has been removed. On perusal of the original order dated 07.12.2001 and appellate order dated 27.02.2002, it transpires that the petitioner was complainant and the private respondent was found to be the encroacher and accordingly, the order has been passed which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has attained finality. He submits that the report annexed with the counter affidavit has been prepared in the office without there being any removal of 3 encroachment and due to this, it has been stated that the encroachment by the petitioner has been removed which is totally against the facts of the case and in fact nobody’s case. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that only a formality has been done by writing a report on paper which has been brought before the Court for disposal of the present writ application. The Court could have taken a serious view but refrains from doing so. The writ petition stands disposed off with a direction to the Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram as well as Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohtas and the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas to ensure that the order dated 07.12.2001 and affirmed by order dated 27.07.2000 which, according to the petitioner, had attained finality should be implemented in totality. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon the concerned respondents, in accordance 4 with law. This Court would like to clarify that the present order is being passed on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders referred to have attained finality. The authorities would also verify this aspect of the matter before proceeding. Kamlesh (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)