IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5228 of 2010 AJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE ADITYA NARAYAN SINGH, LECTURER, SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL COLLEGE, SHEIKHPURA-CUM-CONVENOR GHAR BACHAO-GHAR BANAO AANDOLAN, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA, R/O VILL. & P.O.- ABHAYPUR, P.S. PIRIBAZAR, DISTT.- LAKHISARAI. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE RAILWAY SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, RAIL BHAWAN. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI . 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DANAPUR DIVISION, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY ENGINEER, DANAPUR, PATNA . 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA . 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHPURA . 7. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHEIKHPURA. 8. THE MINING OFFICER, SHEIKHPURA . 9. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT BOARD, SHEIKHPURA . 10. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER CUM C.E.O., ZILA PARISHAD, SHEKHPURA . ------------ Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shashi Bhusan Singh, Adv. For the Respondents :- Mr. A.manullah, Adv. Mr. Nirmal Kumar, G.P.4 Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Adv. ---------- 2 26.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this public interest litigation is for issuance of a direction commanding the 2 respondents not to demolish the houses of Manjhis (scheduled caste) residing in Pathar Tor Mazdur Tola popularly known as Mukdamapur Mushari in the town and district of Shekhpura and also restrain the authorities of the Railways from installing the mega crusher machine on the land occupied by the aforesaid houses of the Manjhis. Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact on being asked about the right and title of the land had frankly conceded that there was no document to show that the land in question on which the Manjhis are said to be residing in the aforesaid tola were settled in their favour. Counsel has, however, questioned the continuance of the project undertaken by the Railways for establishing its mega crusher unit for extracting the stones for its being used for laying down railway tracks and other allied purposes only on the ground of continued possession of land in question being occupied by the houses of Manjhi. . From a perusal of the writ application, it howevr becomes clear that the petitioner, a lecturer in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial College, Sheikhpura claims to be convener of Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan has 3 pretended to act pro bono public on a half baked materials. From reading of the writ application, it also becomes more than clear that such claim of those Manjhis allegedly residing on the 32 acres of plot is based only on oral settlement from one Sri Mukkid Babu, ex-landlord. The fallacy in the story of such oral settlement in fact also gets exposed from their own representation wherein they have admitted that they were actually engaged in manual labour for extracting stones for the Railways. It is also visible that the Railways had also undertaken the work of extracting stones from its own land in past on which the Manjhis had subsequently claim their possession by way of oral settlement from ex-landlord and raising temporary structures for their residential use. Thus, it is more than clear that in the garb of public interest litigation, the petitioner wants to espouse the cause of such unauthorized encroachers of public land who have actually no right, title and interest over the same. The plea of the petitioner that the land earlier belonged to ex-landlord and was settled orally in favor of the Manjhis is also not supported from the return to be 4 submitted by the ex-landlord at the time of vesting of Jamindari in terms of Bihar Land Reforms Act. The Bihar Land Reforms Act had itself envisaged the concept of automatic vesting of the interest of the ex-landlord in the state in respect of such land which were not included in the return. Additionally, this Court would find that the Railways have taken a decision to extract stones from their own land after the decision of the State Government stopping extracting of stones from its different stone pits. Thus, it becomes clear that the petitioner is actually questioning the title of the Railways and is trying to bulldoze the activities undertaken by the Railways over their own land. Such a question of title of the possession cannot be gone into within the limited parameters of writ jurisdiction under the public interest litigation. For such relief pertaining to declaration of right, title and possession, the petitioner or the aggrieved persons, Manjhis whose cause is being espoused the remedy lies before the competent civil court. In the light of our aforementioned limited observations, we find that there is hardly any public 5 interest involved in this case. This Court accordingly would dispose of this writ application with a liberty to the petitioner or the persons whose individual cause has been raised by the petitioner to approach the competent civil court in a properly constituted civil suit by impleading both the authorities of the Union of India, Railways and the State of Bihar. If such a civil suit is filed, the same would be decided on its own merits without being influence by any thing said in the order. With the aforementioned observations this writ application is disposed of. There would be, however, no order as to costs. Rishi (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)