IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2933 of 2011 Akhil Bhartiya Paryavaran Evam Gramin Vikas Sansthan, through its Honrary Secretary Geeta Devi, wife of Rajendra Ram, resident of Mohalla-Gardanibagh Hospital Campus, Police Station- Gardanibagh, District- Patna. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Maksud Ansari, son of not known to the petitioner, Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna. ………Opposite parties. ----------- 03- 21.9.2011 Heard Mr. S. K. Verma for the petitioner, and Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.6. This application under sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner of CWJC No. 18347 of 2008, for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 27.10.2010, whereby the writ petitioner was permitted to raise construction as per its volition on the lands in question which it claims to have purchased from the title-holder. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that after the aforesaid order on the writ petition, opposite party no.2 issued notices dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure-3), and 23.6.2011 (Annexure-4), in Encroachment Case No.03/11-12 against the petitioner. The petitioner states 2 that it is with respect to private property which the petitioner claims to have purchased by registered deed of absolute sale from the title-holder. There is no question of encroachment of Government land. 3. Opposite party no.2 have placed on record his show-cause, paragraph 8 of which is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. That having highest regard with the order of this Hon’ble Court notices dated 06.06.2011 and 23.06.2011 have been withdrawn vide memo no.96 (Mu) dated 20.08.2011. A photo copy of the memo no.96 dated 20.08.2011 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- A to this show cause.” It is thus evident that opposite party no.2 has withdrawn the impugned notices marked Annexures 3 and 4. It appears to us that opposite party no.2 has rightly withdrawn the notices because it raises issues of title of land between two private parties and there is no question of encroachment of government land. In that view of the matter, no notice for the alleged encroachment could have been issued by opposite party no.2. 4. This application is accordingly disposed of. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/