IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18031 of 2009 1. GANESH PRASAD GUPTA S/O LATE HIRA LAL GUPTA R/O VILL- FULKAHA BAZAR, P.O. NAWABGANJ, P.S. FULKAHA, NARPATGANJ, DISTT. ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HOME (SPECIAL) DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ARARIA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ARARIA 6. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE FULKAHA (NARPATGANJ) POLICE STATION, DISTT. ARARIA ----------- 2/ 18/01/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The relief sought is for shifting the Fulkaha Police Station in the District of Araria from the private lands of the petitioner. Strong reliance is placed on a communication dated 1.7.2008 of the Superintendent of Police, Araria addressed to the District Magistrate, Araria recommending vacating of private premises to run the police station upon Government lands. It is next submitted that rent stands paid for the premises only up to Rs.2400/- to the petitioner and remains due since February, 2001. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Dy.S.P., Araria. Dealing with the communication of the Superintendent of Police, Araria dated 1.7.2008 it seeks to question the title of the petitioner even while acknowledging that the lands stand mutated in the name - 2 - of the petitioner and that rent has been paid to the petitioner. The suggestion in the counter affidavit that the mutation was recommended for cancellation is answered on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings have ultimately been dropped. The suggestion in the counter affidavit that there was a proposal for acquisition of the lands merits no consideration at all at this stage in view of the complete absence of any statement in the counter affidavit that if a Section-4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act had been issued much less the date for the same. A future acquisition is an entirely different matter and cannot justify a continued forcible occupation contrary to the law. It shall certainly not behove a Government Authority to behave like a private litigant and suggest that a citizen must file an eviction suit against them and till then the Government shall not vacate the citizen’s property. The State stands in a completely distinct category from the private citizen. The State is required to protect its citizens and not to forcibly occupy their properties. In view of the fact that the counter affidavit leaves this Court thoroughly dissatisfied and the matter relates to the functioning of a police station, the Court considers it proper to refer to what it considers as a - 3 - purely administrative issue to the Director General of Police, Bihar for disposal within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before him by a reasoned and speaking order, inclusive of payment of arrears of rent. This Court hopes and trusts that if there is no litigation pending before a competent Court of Law challenging the title of the petitioner by a third party, the mutation standing in the name of the petitioner, the respondents having acknowledged his title by payment of rent, appropriate orders shall be passed keeping those aspects in mind in light of the discussion contained hereinabove. It is expected that if the Director General of Police upholds the claims of the petitioner, necessary consequential orders shall be passed by him simultaneously forthwith. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid directions. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)