IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16645 of 2009 1. SABZI MANDI DOOKANDAR SANGH AT NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA THROUGH TRIBHUWAN PRASAD, THE SECRETARY 2. TRIBHUWAN PRASAD S/O LATE JAGANNATH SINGH NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA 3. BISHNU PRASAD S/O LATE BADRI PD. GUPTA NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA 4. MOHAN LALL SINGH S/O SRI RAM KAILASH SINGH AT NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA 5. BIR BHUSAN SINGH S/O LATE JAGANNATH SINGH AT NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA 6. RAJIV KUMAR S/O LATE NARESH PRASAD AT NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA 7. DEO KUMAR @ DINESH PRASAD S/O SHRI BISHUNDEO PRASAD AT- NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA 8. SANJAY KUMAR YADAV S/O SRI RAM SWAROOP YADAV NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA 9. SURENDRA KUMAR SWATANTRA S/O LATE JAGARNNATH PD. SWATANTRA NEW MARKET, P.S.- SADAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TOWN DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TOWN DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA ----------- 02 09.12.2009 Though, I have my serious doubts whether this writ petition is maintainable on behalf of the Sabzi Mandi Dookandar Sangh, but as individual have also joint in the same writ petition, the same is being entertained. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that they have being carrying on their business on a land which is East of Pearl Cinema and G.P.O., North of Crockery Shop and South of Hindustan Press. This is covered by temporary constructions and houses of various trades like vegetable sellers, Butcher and Dairy etc. - 2 - They assert that they have been on that land for several decades and some for almost 50 years. A general notice has been issued by the Municipal Corporation asking all of them to vacate that land, which is required for various purposes by the Corporation. Petitioners’ grievance is that earlier also an attempt was made to evict them. They had come to this Court. State Government had considered their grievance and the State Government itself had directed that till alternative arrangement for their settlement is not worked out they should not be evicted. Learned counsel for the Corporation states that before any relief is granted by this Court to the petitioners, petitioners must establish their lawful authority to the land and they must further establish their right to be resettled before they are evicted. In my view, these questions are not necessary to be decided by this Court at this moment, because it is well settled in law that even a trespasser who has perfected his possession cannot be summarily evicted. He can only be evicted in accordance with procedures established by law, even though occupation may be illegal or - 3 - unlawful, eviction has to be legal and lawful methods. There will have to be an appropriate proceeding against all these persons occupying the said land in which they would be entitled to claim and establish their right to remain on the land. That would be considered by the appropriate authority in those eviction proceedings and decided once a decision is taken after hearing the parties. Then, if it is found that they have no authority or a right to remain on the land, eviction orders can be issued and follow up actions taken, but till such time such a proceeding is not initiated and concluded in accordance with law, forcible action even by the State or State instrumentality cannot be countenanced by this Court. The petitioners are also free to approach the Government or any appropriate authority with relief, as they may advised, and pray for, which would be considered in accordance with law and when such occasion arises. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)