IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.4797 OF 2008 URMILA DEVI, WIFE OF OM PRAKASH YADAV, RESIDENT OF LAL DARWAA, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE –CUM- COLLECTOR, MUNGER 3. THE KHAS MAHAL OFFICER, MUNGER 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SADAR, MUNGER 5. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORMS AND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS *********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. KESHO SRIVASTAVA, SR. ADV. MR. VIJAY KR. SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE FOR RESP. NO. 1-6 :- MR. J. S. BARNWAL, S.C. 1 FOR RESP. NO. 7 :- MR. ANIL SINGH, ADVOCATE ************ 7 09/12/2011 The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 17.01.2008 as contained in Annexure-14 by which a notice has been issued to the petitioner treating her to be an encroa cher under the Public Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The lands in question are admittedly Khas Mahal lands which were leased by the State Government to one Jang Bahadur Singh for a period of 30 years. After the expiry of 30 years, the heirs of Jung Bahadur Singh applied for the renewal of lease, which was allowed and the lands in question were again leased for another 30 years to the heirs of Jung Bahadur Singh. The leased expired on 31st March, 2 1992. In the mean time, 1 kahta 14 dhurs and 10 dhurkis of the lands appertaining to plot no. 54 and 55, khata no. 74, touzi no. 1333 (which are the lands in dispute), were transferred in favour of Raj Kumari Devi through a Power of Attorney executed by the heirs of Jung Bahadur Singh in favour of one Shiv Prasad Singh on 01.08.1978. Later, Raj Kumari Devi executed Power of Attorney in favour of Om Prakash Yadav on 12.08.2000 for the purposes of selling the lands that she has purchased in favour of Urmila Devi, who is the petitioner in this case, on 13.03.2001. It would appear from the pleadings of the parties that a land acquisition proceeding was initiated for the purpose of construction of a railway bridge. The petitioner claimed compensation. Her claims for compensation was rejected by the Revenue Department vide its letter no. 4046 dated 13.03.2007. It may be pointed out that after 1992, when the lease expired, the original settlee did not apply for renewal of the lease. Rather, the petitioner applied for renewal of the lease in her favour with respect to the lands which was transferred to her. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the application for renewal of lease is still pending with the authorities, whereas in the letter no. 4046 of the 3 Revenue Department as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application, it would appear that the application of the petitioner for grant of compensation has been rejected on the basis that the said transfer of land to the petitioner was without prior permission of the State Government. The main crux of the petitioner’s argument is that vide the Government letter 8-97/664/Ra dated 15.04.1999, there is a provision under Clause 8 (KHA) of the letter, which envisages that a person who is the transferee of a piece of land which is a Khas Mahal land may apply for settlement of the lands in his/her favour and the State Government may consider the case of settlement. In case, the settlement is not made in favour of the settlee, then the authorities would file a civil suit for eviction of such a transferee. The provisions are quoted hereinbelow. “8 (KA) JAHAN NAVIKARAN NAHIN HUA HAI PARANTU LAGAIN DIYA AUR SAWIKAR KIYA JATA RAHA HAI YAA LEASEDHARI NE SAMAY PAR AAWEDAN KE ADHIN DOGUNA LAGAN LE KAR NAVIKARAN KIYA JAI GAA. (KHA) JAHAN NAVIKARAN NAHIN HUA HAI AUR LAGAN BHI NAHIN DIYA GAYA HAI, ATHWA HASTANTRAN HUA HAI YA PARYOG MAIN PARIWARTAN HUA HAI, WAHAN BHU-DHARI KO ASPAST ATIKARMAN DE DIYA HAI, WAHAN KOI CHHATIMULYA (DAMAGE) DE NAHIN HO GA TATHA VARTAMAN PATTE KI SHARTON (TRES PASSER) MANA JAI GAA. AISE MAMLO MAIN 4 VARTAMAN BHU-DHARI KO NOTICE DE KAR SALAMI NAI SHARTON PAR NAI LEASE KE LIYE PUCHA JA SAKTA HAI. SAHMATI HONE PAR SALAMI LE KAR NAYA PATTA NISPADIT KIYA JAA SAKTA HAI. ASAHMATI PAR CIVIL SUIT DAYAR KAR NISKASHAN (EVICTION) KIYA JAA SAKTA HAI. (GA) KE MAMLON MAIN MOOL PATTE KI AWADHI SAMAPT HONE KE BAD SE NAI PATTE MAIN PARASTAWIT LAGAN KI DOGUNI RASHI DANDATMAK LAGAN (PENALTY) KE ROOP MAIN WASOOLNIYE HO GI. CHUKAI GAYE LAGAN AUR NAI PATTE MAIN PARASTAWIT LAGAN KE FARZ PAR 10 PARTISHAT SOOD DEI HOGA.” The petitioner, therefore, claims that the only manner in which she can be evicted is by institution of a regular civil suit and the encroachment proceeding initiated against her is against the law. The fact remains that the petitioner’s application for renewal has been rejected and there is an urgent need to commence the construction of rail-road bridge in Munger which comes within the purview of a public purpose. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to take steps to secure her title over the land in question as the petitioner had full knowledge of the fact that the lands purchased by her was Khas Mahal land. Considering the circumstances, this court directs that the District Magistrate, Munger should take steps and pass an order in accordance with law after examining the 5 provisions of Khas Mahal Manual and the notification of the State Government issued from time to time and pass an order within three months so that the construction of the rail bridge is not unnecessarily delayed due to inaction of the State authorities. In the mean time the impugned order, dated 17.1.2008 passed in Encroachment Case No. 7/2007- 08 shall remain stayed. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)