IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE No.4052 of 2010 ==================================================== MAHANT SAGAR DAS Chela of Mahant Mani Ram Das, resident of Mohalla- Chakdiwan,Sheukhpura, p.S.Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura -- --Petitioner . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anup Mukherjee, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri Dharmendra Singh, the District Magistrate,Sheikhpura at Sheikhpura. 4. Sri Sakil Jamal, the District Development Commissioner,Sheikhpura at Sheikhpura. 5. Sri Manoj Ali, the Sub-divisional Officer,Sub-division- Sheikhpura, Sheikhpura. 6. Sri Jagdish Paswan, the Circle Officer, Circle Sheikhpura Town, Sheikhpura. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Adv. And Mr.Binit Kumar For the Respondents: S.C.9 ==================================================== 5. 29.6.2011 On 9.4.2010 in CWJC No. 10548 of 2009 this Court passed under noted order. After noticing that earlier in a writ proceeding in 1995, this Court had directed the State and restrained it from cancelling the Zamabandi in favour of the petitioner yet again the then District Magistrate, Sheikhpura in a brazen fashion threw all constitutional norms and ousted the petitioner from his property and took it in his possession. This is what was challenged in the present proceeding and the operative order is noted hereunder: “ Be that as it may, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State. In the counter affidavit, the same old story is 2 repeated. It is again said that no settlement could have been made in favour of the petitioner. That the settlement was made is not denied. The situation remains the same and identical to what was there in 1995 when the earlier writ petition was allowed. It is unfortunate that orders of this Court, passed on contest, are not respected by the district authorities. We expect that rule of law would prevail and so long a judgment is there moreso inter parties, all parties are bound to obey the same. The Collector of the district being no exception. He represents the Government and is not independent of the Government. If the Government is bound by a judgment so is the Collector. That being the position, I have no option but to allow the writ petition and direct the district authority including the Collector of the district- Sheikhpura to remove himself from the property of the petitioner and restore the property to the petitioner in the shape in which they had taken over possession. That should be done within one month from the date of presentation of a copy of this order before the Collector, Sheikhpura.” Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, a show cause has been filed by the Circle Officer in which it is stated that all work that was being done at the site after this illegal take over was stopped and the District Magistrate, Sheikhura requested the Law Department for filing L.P.A. The concerned file was sent to the office of Advocate General, who opined against filing of L.P.A. and observed that only remedy available to the State was 3 to acquire the land. Thereafter guidelines were sought for from Planning and Development Department and when it was estimated that the cost for acquisition would over Rs. 10 crores, the Planning and Development Department directed to abundant the scheme and stop all the works. At this juncture I may just note how valuable the property was evident and how brazenly it was taken over is to be seen. All that show cause stated is that in pursuance to the judgment of this Court now no work is being done on the land and there is no State interference in enjoyment of the property by the writ petitioner but in the same para again a defiance is shown. It is stated that so far as restoration of land in the shape in which it was taken possession it is respectfully submitted that on the aforesaid land from time immemorial “Chhath” is being performed by local people and during the beautification scheme the beautification of the „Ghat‟ has also been done which if now disturbed may lead to further complication. Not a single word is said as to how property has been restored. Not a chit of paper has been filed to back the claim of restoration. There is no public notice that the property is restored to its owner. Not even to the petitioner. That clearly shows that the district administration is unable to put its ego away in view of the court‟s order. That is unconstitutional. The then District Magistrate Sri Dharmendra Singh is personally present in the Court pursuant to the direction of this Court and seeks apology. Unfortunately, it is not the order of this Court that has 4 been violated. There has been fragment disregard and violation of the Constitutional right. I can only remind him that this Court may accept his apology but the people to whom injustice has been done may never forget. However, considering the career of young officer, I accept the apology with a direction that he take all possible steps by publically notifying restoration of the property with apology to the writ petitioner within fifteen days from today. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)