IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5074 of 2010 Dashrath Mahto S/O Late Prayag Mahto R/O Village - Salkhani , P.O - Singia Ghat, P.S - Bibhutipur, District – Samastipur. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur 3. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. 4. The Assistant Mining Officer, Samastipur, District - Samastipur 5. The Subdivisional Magistrate, Rosera Sub-Division, District- Samastipur. 6. The Zonal Regional Officer, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Officer in Charge, namely Md. Sanobar Khan, Bibhutipur Police Station, District – Samastipur. 8. Sri Ram Narain Mandal S/O Late Jagdeo Mandal, Resident of Village and P.O - Rahuo , P.S.- Rosera, District – Samastipur. 9. Sri Upendra Mahto S/O Late Sarjug Mahto, R/O Village Singia Ghat, P.S - Bibhutipur, District – Samastipur. 10. Sri Lalbabu Singh S/O Sri Ramjivan Singh R/O Village - Singia Ghat, Tola Shivnathpur, P.S - Bibhutipur, District – Samstipur. …..Respondents. ---------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the respondents-State : Mr. De Gunjan Choudhary, A.C. to AAG-13. For the respondents- Mines: Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Spl. P.P. (Mines) For respondent nos. 8 to 10: Mr. S. Alamdar Hussain, Advocate. ------------- 10/ 20.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State of Bihar as well as learned counsel for respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents-authority to restrain respondent nos. 8 to 10 from carrying out the illegal trade of manufacturing bricks as the - 2 - licence for the same and the certificate to run the said business by Pollution Control Board has lapsed and respondent-Assistant Mining Officer by his letter dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure-5) directed private respondent no.8 to close manufacturing of the bricks immediately and the petitioner in spite of being partner of the said business of manufacturing the bricks registered as M/s Bol Bam IT Udyog has been ousted and dispossessed from his own brick-kiln and for a further relief for directing respondent nos. 8 to 10 to vacate the land in question which belongs to the petitioner as per his claim. 3. The contention of the petitioner is two fold. Firstly he claims that the land belonged to him and secondly that he was the partner in M/s Bolbam IT Udyog along with respondent no.8, but he was ousted by respondent no.8, who has also illegally leased out the land in question to respondent nos.9 and 10 by registered deed of lease dated 26.12.2009. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record it is quite apparent that neither any material with respect to title of the parties are on record, nor this Court can decide the said question of title between the parties in this case. Moreover, Title Suit No.26 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner against respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10 for declaration of the deed of lease dated 26.12.2009 executed by respondent no.8 in favour of respondent nos.9 and 10 as ineffective. The said relief claimed by the petitioner in the suit will be dependent upon his claim of title over the land in question. Hence, the said point can be validly decided in a civil suit. - 3 - 5. So far the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the authorities of the State Government have filed their counter affidavit in paragraphs 7 and 8 of which it is stated that the aforesaid M/s Bolbam IT Udyog is being run by respondent nos. 9 and 10 and they have deposited royalty and application fees. In addition thereto, respondent nos. 8 to 10 also filed a counter affidavit annexing order of the Assistant Mining Officer, Samastipur dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure-E series) permitting M/s Bolbam IT Udyog having respondent nos.9 and 10 as its partner to run the said permanent chimney of the concern. A receipt dated 13.07.2011 has also been annexed showing payment of royalty etc. for 2011 also. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that although authorities had stopped respondent no.8 for manufacturing bricks in M/s Bolbam IT Udyog vide order dated 20.02.2010 (Annexure-5), but subsequently they allowed respondent nos.9 and 10, who are lessees of respondent no.8, to run brick manufacture work in the permanent chimney of M/s Bolbam IT Udyog vide order dated 26.03.2010 (Annexure-E series) and are receiving royalty etc. regularly, but the petitioner has not challenged the said order of the authority dated 26.03.2010 in the instant writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Assistant Mining Officer, Samastipur (respondent no.4) along with an application raising his entire claim in the matter. If such an application is filed by the - 4 - petitioner along with a copy of this order within four weeks from today, the said authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within two months thereafter after giving opportunities of hearing to respondent nos. 8 to 10 also. It goes without saying that the said authority should not be influenced by any observation in this order as no view with respect to claim of the parties has been expressed in this order. Sunil/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)