IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4720 of 2003 Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Jiwan Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Gugharitand Ward No. 34, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Gaya Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 3. The Collector, Gaya 4. The Additional Collector, Gaya 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya 6. Anchal Adhikari Town Block, Gaya 7. The Officer Incharge Civil Line Police Station, Gaya 8. Gopal Paswan 9. Bhagwan Paswan 10. Durga Paswan, Sl. Nos. 8 to 10 are sons of Gajadhar Gorait 11. Santosh Paswan, S/o Gopal Paswan, 12. Muni Paswan 13. Indal Paswan, Sl. No. 12 to 13 are sons of late Krishna Paswan, all resident of Mohalla- Gughari Tand, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Gaya ------ For the petitioner: Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shafiur Rahman, AC to SC 17 For the Respondent Nos. 8 to 13: Mr. Shambhu Nath, Advocate ----- 3. 23.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 8 to 13. The writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to remove the encroachment from the disputed land alleged to be Garmajarua Aam Pokhar situated at Ghughari Tand Ward No. 23, Khata No. 92 plot no. 152, area 2 acres 19 decimals 2 corresponding to revisional survey Khata No. 1653, Plot No. 3033/21873/152 under the Gaya Municipal Corporation which he claims to have been illegally encroached by respondent nos. 8 to 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 4205/2003 for amendment of the prayer made in the writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Survey, Gaya. This Court is of the view that the said amendment is not fit to be considered in the present writ petition which has been filed for removal of encroachment. So far as the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Survey is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings if so advised; the same cannot be the subject- matter of the present proceedings in view of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The prayer for amendment is thus rejected. From the averments made in the writ petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has taken recourse to the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act by approaching the competent authority for taking action under 3 the said Act. Straightaway under the writ jurisdiction of this Court no such direction can be given to the authorities. Only if the authorities fail to perform their statutory functions, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked. Hence, on a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be considered at this stage under the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate authorities for removal of encroachment in accordance with law. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)