IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11161 of 2003 Ashok Kumar son of Sri Krishna Prasad Singh, resident of Barah, P.O. Barah, P.S. Harnaut, District- Nalanda – Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Building Consrtruction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda, District Nalanda. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda. 5. The Block Development Officer, Harnaut, District Nalanda. 6. Circle Officer/Anchal Adhikari, Harnaut, District Nalanda. 7. The Bihar State Religious Trust Board through Chairman, Vidyapati Marg, District- Patna. --- Respondents. ----------- 7/ 18-01-2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the respondents may be directed to remove the encroachment allegedly made by certain persons (name of the encroachers not disclosed in the whole petition) from the lands of Khata no. 138, Payeen No. 636/901, Rasta no. 900 of Mouza Berhana, Anchal Harnaut, District- Nalanda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that he has no legal rights with respect to the lands in question. Only grievance raised is that the irrigational facility was to be provided through payeen no.636/901 for the benefit of the local people, but because of certain encroachments made by certain local persons the construction of payeen in question could not 2 be completed. 4. Learned Government Advocate no.4, Mr. A. Amannullah appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 6 has vehemently challenged the maintainability of the present writ petition. In his submission, as a matter of fact the land/ Payeen in question is free from encroachment. He has drawn the attention of the court towards the averments made in paragraph-5 and 6 of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6, which are reproduced herein below: 5.“That in compliance of the above direction the Circle Officer, Harnaut along with Karamchari, Halka no.2 and the acting Circle Inspector, Anchal, Harnaut made an inspection of the site on 02.07.2010, where it was found that the public land mentioned below is free from encroachment. The details of encroachment free from public land are as follows: Mauza Thana Name of Raiyat Khata No. Kheshra Name of the Area of the land No. No. land Berhana 200 Gair Mazarua 138 636 Bandh 1.11 D Do 636/901 Paine 0.26.D Do 638/900 Bandh 0.17 D A photo copy of Nazri Naksha is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G to this supplementary counter affidavit. 6. That some other land is of Goshain Math which is recorded as Bakast land in cadastral survey. Jamabandi of this land is running in the name of Baba Vichitra Nath and rent receipt has been receipt has been issued upto the year 2006-07. This land is a raiyati land and not a public land.” 5. In compliance of the order dated 3 11.01.2011, respondent- Anchal Adhikari (respondent no.6) was physically present in the court yesterday (17.01.2011) and is present even today. He has filed a fresh show-cause, wherein the statement made in the previous supplementary counter affidavit has been reiterated and it has been categorically said that a spot enquiry was made by respondent no.6 himself along with other government officials, whereafter it was found that the land in question is free from encroachment. 6. In view of the stand taken in the counter- affidavit/ show cause filed on behalf of the respondents, this Court does not find any reason to proceed any further in the matter. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 7. However, Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit and the show cause are not fully correct and the entire details have not been disclosed in those affidavits. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to examine the matter any further. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise such grievance before the District Magistrate, Nalanda, respondent no.3. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner giving the specific details regarding specific encroachment by 4 certain specific persons, then respondent no.3 will be obliged to take into consideration the grievance of the petitioner and further be obliged to take follow up action. 8. Before parting with this record, it must be indicated that on previous occasion (11.01.2011), respondent no.6 was directed to produce the record of Encroachment Case No. 1 of 2002-03. In the show-cause filed on behalf of respondent no.6 it has been stated that the record of that encroachment case is missing and a departmental proceeding against some officials as also criminal proceedings have been initiated. It is hoped that those proceedings shall reach to its logical conclusion. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. BTiwary/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)