IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.179 of 2010 ----- 1. Prasidh Sharma, son of Late Bindeshwari Singh. 2. Tanik Sharma, son of Late Indradeo Singh. 3. Sohan Sharma, son of Late Bachhu Singh. 4. Anirudh Sharma, son of Late Ramadhin Singh 5. Urmila Devi, wife of Anirudh Sharma, All resident of Village-Mafo, P.S.-Nehus, District-Sheikpura. 6. Suresh Singh, son of Late Ram Kishun Singh 7. Usha Devi, wife of Anil Kumar, Resident of Village- Sarmera, P.S.-Sarmera, District- Nalanda. 8. Nirmala Devi, wife of Suresh Singh 9. Anil Kumar @ Singh, son of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh 10. Mohan Kumar @ Singh, son of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh 11. Gopal Kumar @ Singh, son of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh. Appellant nos. 6, 8 to 11 are resident of –Issua, P.S.Sarmera, District-Nalanda. -- Intervenors-appellants. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary and Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Sheikpura. 3. The Circle Officer Sheikpura Block, District-Sheikpura. 4. The Circle Inspector Sheikpura Block, District-Sheikpura. -- Respondents-Respondents. 5. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi, wife of Sitaram Singh, resident of Mohalla in front of Purani Bijali Office by-pass road, Sheikpura, P.S.-Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura. -- Petitioner-Respondents. ------- For the appellants : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate. For the respondents- :Mrs. Nividita Nirvikar, State Government Pleader-16. ---- 02. 02.02.2010 I.A.No.869 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of - 2 - five days in preferring the appeal. Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Nividita Nirvikar, learned counsel for the State. Regard being had to the assertions made, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay and accordingly it is so ordered. Interlocutory application stands allowed. I.A.No.870 of 2010 This is an application for grant of leave to prefer the appeal on the ground that the appellants have been affected by the order of the learned Single Judge. On a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is noticeable that he had allowed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner on the ground that notice which was issued to her for removing the encroachment could not have been done as there was dispute with regard to right, title and interest. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 has expressed the view as follows:- “ In the circumstances, order dated 20.07.2009 passed in Encroachment Case No.310 of 2003-04 and Misc.No.83 of 2004 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sheikhpura along with notice, Annexure-B are quashed with liberty to the State respondents to seek appropriate declaration from the competent civil court that lands in question is public land and if they succeed in - 3 - getting the lands declared as public land, they may proceed to demolish the construction raised by the petitioner over the lands in question.” It is contended by the learned counsel for the present appellants that the writ petitioner could not have come challenging the notice as the appellate forum was there. It is also put forth she had earlier come in the writ petition. It is contended that the property belongs to the State and the appellants’ easementary right has been affected. In our considered opinion, regard being had to the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it cannot be said that the appellants’ right is affected. They do not claim to be the owners of the land in question. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain the application for leave. Needless to state, they can approach the legal forum as advised in law to establish their easementary right. The application for leave is, accordingly, rejected and consequently the appeal stands dismissed. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)