IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16099 of 2010 1. SHUSHIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE S/O SURENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE R/O WARD NO.19, COLONY NO. 1, KATIHAR P.S. AND DISTT.- KATIHAR 2. SUBRATO CHAKRAWARTI S/O LATE GURUPAD CHAKRAWARTI R/O WARD NO.19, COLONY NO. 1, KATIHAR P.S. AND DISTT.- KATIHAR 3. ASHIM DUTTA S/O HARINDO DUTTA R/O WARD NO.19, COLONY NO. 1, KATIHAR P.S. AND DISTT.- KATIHAR 4. BHABATOSH DAS S/O ASHUTOSH DAS R/O WARD NO.19, COLONY NO. 1, KATIHAR P.S. AND DISTT.- KATIHAR 5. GOPAL MUKHERJEE S/O GPINONATH MUKHERJEE R/O WARD NO.19, COLONY NO. 1, KATIHAR P.S. AND DISTT.- KATIHAR 6. BABLU BISWAS S/O GOPAL BISWAS R/O WARD NO.19, COLONY NO. 1, KATIHAR P.S. AND DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KATIHAR 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KATIHAR 5. N.B.T. ISLAMIA SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KATIHAR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ----------- 3/ 05/05/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for respondent No.5. I.A. No.8895/10 has been filed challenging the final order dated 28.9.2010 passed during the pendency of the writ petition in Encroachment Case No.4/09-10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that C.W.J.C. No.8073/09 was filed as a public interest litigation for removal of certain encroachments in the respondent No.5 institution. A Division Bench of this Court observed that it was for the authorities to examine the grievances in accordance with law directing the Circle Officer, Katihar to proceed in accordance with law for removal of any encroachment existing on a public lands. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed 2 on behalf of the State on 1.12.2010. No copy has been served on the counsel for the petitioner. However, the Court permitted learned counsel for State to make submissions from his copy which has been perused by the Court also. Let the office retain a Xerox copy of the counter affidavit even while it shall endeavour to trace out the original. The contention of the State in paragraph-5(iii) that this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8073/09 gave directions for removal of encroachments is completely belied from the Court’s order and is a deliberate misreading of the order. The Division Bench never gave any finding that an encroachment existed. It only observed that if there was an encroachment it should be removed in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the school had won in Title Suit No.351/88 by judgment and order dated 22.2.2005. If the petitioners were wrongfully in possession of the lands in question, it was for respondent No.5 to seek appropriate directions from the competent civil court in an execution proceeding for restoration of possession of the lands. Be that as it may, the Court finds that the 3 final order dated 28.9.2010 is cryptic, unreasoned and non-speaking in nature. It simply states that the parties were heard, that the lands in occupation of the petitioners were public lands. He was therefore directed to vacate the encroached lands. In the event of failure to do so, the Administration shall proceed to effect the same and in which event if the marking done on his residential house was inadvertently done in excess by the administration, the official respondents would not be liable for the same. There is no discussion in the order with regard to the respective case of the parties, the consideration of the same by the statutory authority followed by a brief reasoning and discussion on basis of which the statutory authority was satisfied of an encroachment. The petitioner is stated to have filed his reply to the show cause notice which finds no consideration in the final order at all. The subject-matter of the alleged encroachment is a residential house. The recitals of the order are ominous for the petitioners. It contained a safety valve for markings beyond may actually be required. The Court finds the impugned order dated 28.9.2010 wholly unsustainable either on merits or for 4 lack of adequate discussion. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Circle Officer, Katihar to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order displaying full application of mind to all facts and circumstances containing his reasoning and discussion to arrive at an independent reasoned conclusion. The application is allowed . KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)