IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9876 of 2004 MOHAN LAL GUPTA SON OF LATE RUP LAL SAHU, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAKHDUMPUR QATA, P.S. JEHANABAD, TOWN AND DISTRICT JEHANABAD – PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD. 4. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, DISTRICT BOAD, JEHANABAD – RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S Sanjeet Kumar & Vijay Anand, Advocates. For the State : Md. Shahab Khalil, A.C. to S.C.III. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 08-04-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The main road of Jehanabad town, appertaining to khata no.340, plot no. 214, has been encroached upon by the petitioner by constructing a pucca building over the same. As per findings of original authority i.e. respondent District Magistrate as also the appellate authority i.e. respondent Commissioner, the traffic on the main road is being obstructed due to encroachment made by the petitioner because of aforesaid illegal construction over the public land. 3. A proceeding under section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short ‘the Act’) was initiated by the respondent- District Collector for removal of encroachment from the public land giving rise 2 to Case No. 10/DM/1990-91 and after following the procedure prescribed under the Act, final order was passed on 07.07.1990, directing the petitioner to remove the aforesaid encroachment from the public land to the extent indicated in that order. The petitioner was given some time for demolition of his building over the encroached portion of the public road. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 07.07.1990, preferred an appeal under section 11 of the Act, which was finally disposed of by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Gaya by his order dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure-3), remitting the matter back to the respondent- District Collector for getting the public land re-measured and for passing a fresh order. 4. On the basis of aforesaid order of remand, Case No. 52/DM/1991-92 was started by respondent District Collector, and on one pretext or other and for the reasons best known to the petitioner and the authorities concerned, the matter remained pending there for almost nine years. Fortunately, final order was passed by respondent District Collector, by his impugned order dated 04.08.2001 (Annexure-2) directing the petitioner to remove the encroached portion of building within a period of two months by making certain alternative arrangements. The Circle Officer has been directed to put 3 a marking on measurement for removal of the encroachment within a period of two months. However, it has been further directed that if within the aforesaid period of two months the encroachment is not removed by the petitioner, then the Circle Officer shall be obliged to remove the encroached portion of the building within a period of one month thereafter and entire costs shall be realized from the petitioner, who is encroacher. A finding of fact has also been recorded by respondent District Magistrate that the house in question belonging to the petitioner is situate in the main market and portion of the main road of the market has been encroached upon by the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order dated 04.08.2001 (Annexure-2), the petitioner again preferred an appeal before respondent Divisional Commissioner, giving rise to Encroachment Appeal Case No. 50 of 2001, which has been finally disposed of by an order dated 01.04.2004 (Annexure-1). The Respondent Divisional Commissioner has also come to a finding that encroachment made by the petitioner is on the main road of the town and that would obstruct the free flow of traffic. However, the respondent Divisional commissioner made slight modification in the order of the respondent District Collector and enlarged the period from two months to six months during which the encroachment 4 made by the petitioner has been directed to be removed. 5. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that despite order of the competent authority, the petitioner has succeeded in delaying the removal of the encroachment from the main road of Jehanabad town for more than ten years. The present writ petition was filed on 23.08.2004. More than 6 years have elapsed since then, though there is no stay order passed by this Court, yet orders impugned appear to have not been implemented by the respondent- authorities in its letters and spirit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only one point that earlier direction issued by the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure-3) was not properly complied with. However, while making that submission he has completely forgotten the fact that fresh impugned order has been passed not only by the District Collector on 04.08.2001 (Annexure-2),but by respondent Divisional Commissioner also on 01.04.2004 (Annexure-1). 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the orders impugned. The writ petition has to fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. The respondent- District Collector is hereby 5 directed to implement the impugned orders passed by him as also by Division Commissioner without any unnecessary delay. If the encroachment made by the petitioner on the main road of Jehanabad town has not been removed in the light of the orders impugned, then that must be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. Let a copy of this order be handed over the learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No.3 who shall forward the same to the respondent-District Collector forthwith. He also assures the Court that he shall inform the District Collector on telephone today (08.04.2011) to implement the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. BTiwary/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)