IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8792 of 2008 1) Bhagwat Mahto, son of Late Arjun Mahto, 2) Dhanvir Mahto, 3) Manvir Mahto, both sons of Late Pritam Mahto, 4) Bindeshwar Mahto, son of Late Ganeshi Mahto, 5) Mossamat Gauri Devi, wife of Late Parmeshwar Mahto, 6) Singheshwar Mahto, 7) Ravinath Matho, both sons of Late Ganeshi Mahto, 8) Lalchand Mahto, son of Late Kanhai Mahto, all of village Raichand Khutauna Tola Mongalaha, PS Laukha, present Lalmuniyan, Dist. Madhubani – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Collector, Madhubani. 2) The Addl. Collector, Madhubani. 3) The D.C.L.R., Jhanjharpur. 4) The Subdivisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani. 5) The Block Dev. Officer, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani – Respondents. 3 19.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to remove the encroachment from the lands in question which belong to the petitioners and which they claim to be in cultivating possession over the same. The Collector, Madhubani and the concerned revenue authorities have allowed certain private persons to construct on the lands which belong to the petitioners presumably on the basis of the fact that the lands belong to the State Government. The petitioners had challenged the action of the respondents in permitting the settlees or persons who come within a particular scheme to take possession of the lands in question and disturb the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners had filed CWJC No. 2785/1986 with a similar prayer 2 as made in the present writ petition. This court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition after giving due notice to the respondents in the writ petition had observed that the petitioner had produced documents, such as, Jamabandi return, rent receipts, order sheet mutation case nos. 216 of 1958 and 663 of 1958. The petitioners had also moved the District Magistrate who did not take any steps in the matter. In the order passed by this court, dated 18.4.1995 in the aforesaid writ petition, it has been observed as follows : “In writ jurisdiction neither it is permissible nor possible for me to record any conclusive finding about the title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. But at the same time it will amount to denial of justice to the petitioners if the respondents were allowed to raise construction over the land in dispute without getting their rights established therein. In other words, the respondents cannot be legally allowed to deprive the petitioners of the land in dispute otherwise than in accordance with law. In the peculiar facts of this case, in my opinion, end of justice would meet by restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners, over the land in dispute by raising construction or otherwise, without getting the rights of respondent no.1 established by a competent civil court.” The writ petition was allowed and the proceedings initiated on 24.8.1984 along with the order dated 4.6.1984 were quashed and the respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners by raising construction, without respondent no. 1 getting the title and rights declared by a competent civil court. Again in 2008 the respondent authorities have permitted certain private persons who supposedly are the beneficiaries of Grih Nirman Yojna Scheme propagated to 3 permit homeless persons to construct houses. In this case time was granted on 19.7.2011 to the State counsel to file a counter affidavit. However, no counter affidavit has been filed and the State counsel submits that he has not received any instructions in this matter. This court would achieve nothing by granting further time considering the attitude of the State authorities. Therefore, this court holds that the order passed in the earlier writ petition is reiterated to the extent that the District Magistrate, Madhubani should consider the order and after taking cognizance of the order, take appropriate steps in this matter. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Madhubani along with the order passed in CWJC No. 2785/1986. In the mean time, further proceedings in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed. No further construction should be made until final steps are taken by the District Magistrate in accordance with the earlier order of this court passed in the writ petition. It does without saying that if a suit is filed, the State respondents would have the right to move the civil court for interim relief. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)