IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.952 of 2008 MANOJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS Versus HIRA KANT JHA & ORS ----------- 2 8.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 12.3.2008 whereby and whereunder the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioners as with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the same was clearly barred under Section 16 of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that as a matter of fact, if the plaint is read along with its schedule-II it would become clear that the suit has been filed in respect of a land for which an order has been passed by the authorities under the Act declaring the said land to be public land. He therefore, submits that when an application with regard to the maintainability of the suit was raised under the provisions of Order VII Rule, 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court below was duty bound to reject the plaint and accordingly dismiss the suit. In the opinion of this Court such submission - 2 - of the counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit, Section 16 of the Act reads as follows:- “No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any Court in respect of any order passed under this Act”. The aforesaid clear provision under Section 16 of the Act leaves nothing for speculation that only such civil suits are barred which are directly or substantially questioning any order of the authorities passed under the Act. In the present case, the relief which has been sought by the plaintiff/opposite party is as follows:- A) That on the consideration of aforesaid facts and circumstances a decree for declaration of title to and confirmation of possession in favour of plaintiff along with defendant 3rd party over suit land i.e. schedule-II of plaint be passed. B) That a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1st and 2nd parties from any interference in possession of plaintiffs over suit land and also from changing present status- quo of the suit land be passed. - 3 - C) That a decree of cost against defendants be also passed. D) That a decree for any other relief or reliefs which the Court, deems proper and fit be and passed in favour of plaintiff. In the opinion of this Court, none of the four aforementioned reliefs sought for by the plaintiff/opposite party in any event, questions any order of the authority under the Act and consequently the Court below has rightly held that the question of maintainability of the suit on the ground of its barred under Section 16 of the Act is wholly misconceived and its order rejecting such application of the petitioner does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. This Court in exercise of power under Section 115 would also take no different view as there is no error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)