IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3436 of 2009 Pradeep Kumar Tiwary, son of Late B. N. Tiwary, resident of village – Parbatta, Police Station – Parbatta, District – Khagaria ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shri Abhai Kumar Singh, father’s name not known, District Magistrate, Khagaria ……………… Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 08. 07.12.2011 This matter has been under consideration of the High Court for more than a decade and a half in one manner or the other. The original order passed by a Learned Single Judge relates to the year 1995 and the background for passing such an order was the so called effort of the State to acquire the land which did not attain finality under the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the acquisition itself was struck-down to be bad in law. The natural corollary to the same would be that the land-lord, who happens to be the petitioner, was entitled to reclaim his land. Over a period of time certain portions of the land were encroached upon. The factum neither denied by the district administration nor the evidence which has come by way of several affidavits. But a fair stand has been taken by the petitioner as well as the State at the intervention of AAG-1 that a scheme to acquire the said land amounting to 3.20 acres is already in place and I am told it is at an advanced stage. The issue which is left or has been confronting the Court is with regard to the rest of the portion of land, which has to be handed over to the petitioner in furtherance to the 1995 decision. 2 When the Contempt Application was filed, it has emerged that out of the balance land, which is to be returned to the petitioner, amounting to 10.16 acres, the allegation is that over 1.81 acres land has been encroached upon and that is coming in the way of the petitioner taking peaceful possession of the balance land as well. The District Magistrate, Khagaria is present in person. He makes categorical statement at the bar that the repeated assertions of the petitioner with regard to the encroachment and the inability of the petitioner to take peaceful vacant possession of the left-over land is no longer an issue, because the district administration has ensured that those portions of so called encroachment also stand removed and to that extent resistant of the petitioner is a begotten kind of claim or resistance rather than on actual state of affairs. The Court is not unmindful of the fact that this issue was being monitored in a contempt jurisdiction and the matter has dragged on for a while only with the object of ensuring that the order of the Learned Single Judge was implemented in letter and spirit. The Court is now satisfied that there is substantial compliance of the Orders passed by the Court from time to time and there is no further cause of action left to proceed in the present Contempt Application. It is still open to the petitioner to take possession of the balance land even now and for which full cooperation has 3 been assured by the district administration in this regard. If the petitioner wants, he can take advantage of the assurance given to the Court or let him chart out strategy for the future, for which, the Court has nothing to do in the contempt. Contempt Application is dismissed. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)