IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 2683 of 2007 BHOLA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 24.07.2008 The petitioner had come to this Court challenging an encroachment proceedings initiated against him by the Circle Officer, Gaya Town in Encroachment Case No 37 of 2007. This Court was of the view that the petitioner should file his show cause and the proceedings be disposed of by the Circle Officer at the first instance. The petitioner was, as such, relegated to the Circle Officer who was directed to dispose of the encroachment proceedings before touching the land. It was made clear that during pendency of the encroachment proceedings, lands in question would not be interfered with in any manner. This order was passed on the 03rd of September, 2007. Petitioner then filed the present application for initiation of contempt proceedings on the 06th of November, 2007 specifically averring that though the encroachment proceedings have not yet been disposed of, the district authorities are already encroaching upon the land, digging it and disturbing the petitioner. This Court issued notice by order dated 27.03.2008 and the respondents including the District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Gaya was asked to show cause. Show cause thereafter was filed not by the persons in person but by the Circle Officer on behalf of all the opposite parties including the District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Gaya. The show cause 2 was an apology for a show cause in a contempt proceedings. It was most vague, uncertain and this Court was at a loss to decipher any thing nor the learned State Counsel was in a position to assist in absence of clear instructions. It was obviously a contempt to cover up a default realized by the respondents and, therefore, evasive and confusing statements given. This Court then directed the District Magistrate to be personally present in the Court and a further show cause has been filed. It is curious to note that there is no dispute that the encroachment proceedings are yet to be disposed of but again a justification for wrongful encroachment by the State, after the order of stay, has been given. Both the District Magistrate and the Circle Officer, who are present, admit construction of drain having been made by the State but, both having been recently appointed/posted, plead ignorance as to when it was done even though those are all matters of record and could very easily be verified. This, in my view, clearly establishes that the orders of this Court have been flagrantly violated. This is a serious matter but in absence of a specific averment on behalf of petitioner as against the present District Magistrate or the present Circle Officer that they were instrumental in initiating such steps, I am unable to proceed further against them. However, the authorities are warned to be more careful in future. This Court is not satisfied by the bona fides even of the present Collector and the Circle Officer as when they found 3 constructions on the disputed land having been made by the State, they should have taken a positive stand and disclose as to who was responsible for the violation and made attempts to restore and/or pacify the petitioner. No such steps were taken. However, merely because the opposite parties have not acted in bona fide, it is not incumbent upon this Court to take action. I drop the proceedings with a serious warning to the officers concerned. Let it be noted that order No 4 dated 17.07.2008, in these proceedings, have been recorded as CWJC No 2683 of 2007 instead of MJC No 2683 of 2007 and consequently the party name in that order has also been wrongly typed. M.E.H./ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh )