IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9464 of 2002 1. SARYU PD.SINGH, SON OF SHRI KISHUN SINGH. 2. RAJENDRA SHARMA, SON OF RAMDEO SHARMA. 3. RAJESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE ANIRUDH SINGH. 4. SHEO NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF SOHRAI SINGH. 5. RAM ADHIN SINGH, SON OF DILIP SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-SHOBHAGANJ, P.O., P.S. SASARAM, DIST.-ROHTAS. ........................ PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SASARAM, ROHTAS. 5. SPECIAL OFFICER, SASARAM MUNICIPALITY, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 6. SHRI INDAR CHAND SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-SOBHAGANJ, P.O., P.S.- SASARAM, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ....................... RESPONDENTS ----------- 4. 20.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. In this writ application, the petitioner has made a prayer for a direction to the respondent authority to remove encroachment from municipal plot No. 2141, Ward No. 11 of Sasaram Municipality encroached by Sri Indrachand Singh, who in spite of the notice issued by the Special Officer, Sasaram Municipality, has not removed the same. Noticing the aforementioned relief this Court had issued notice to both Sasaram Municipality as also to respondent no.6. 2 While Municipality, respondent no.5, through its Executive Officer has already filed its counter affidavit, respondent no.6 however has not filed his counter affidavit. From the counter affidavit of the Executive Officer of the Municipality, it would be clear that the Municipality had found respondent no.6 to be an encroacher of the public land over plot no. 2141 in Ward No.11 of Mohalla Shobhaganj and had directed the Respondent no. 6 to remove encroachment within a week but he (respondent no.6) has not removed such encroachment. As noted above, there is no counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.6 and the facts alleged against him would be deemed to have been admitted by him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6, however, would submit that after filing of the writ application certain developments have taken place and the issue as to whether respondent no.6 has made encroachment or not is pending consideration before the District Administration. He, however, is not in a 3 position to lay his hand on any such documents. One thing is clear that the land in question is a public land under the control of the Municipality. The petitioner alleges that respondent no.6 has been encroacher of such public land and the Municipality in the counter affidavit says that respondent no.6 has encroached such land and had directed Respondent no. 6 to remove the encroachment. If all these facts are admitted this Court would fail to understand as to why the Municipality has developed cold feet after passing the order for removal of encroachment of the Respondent no. 6. The Municipal authorities have the statutory duty to safeguard the civic amenities and rights of the common people and are expected to work in the public interest by removal of any encroachment from the public land. This Court, accordingly, would direct respondents no. 1 to 5 to ensure that if there has been no subsequent order staying the decision of the Municipality with regard to removal of encroachment by respondent no.6, the same must be removed 4 Surendra/ within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction this writ application is finally disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)