IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.116 of 2006 SHANKAR YADAV, S/o Bhadai Yadav, R/o Village- Shahpur, P.S.-G.B.Nagar, Tarwara, P.O.-Shankra, District- Siwan. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. 3. The Collector, Siwan 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Maharajganj 5. The Circle Officer, Maharajganj, District- Siwan 6. Jeet Bahadur Yadav, S/o Late Ram Briksha Yadav, R/o Village- Shahpur, P.S.-G.B. Nagar, Tarwara, District-Siwan. 7. Manager Yadav, S/o Chatruri Yadav, , R/o Village- Shahpur, P.S.- G.B. Nagar, Tarwara, District-Siwan. For the petitioner : M/s Jitendra Kishore Verma & Uday Bhai Singh Advocates. For the State : Mr. S. Arshad Alam (SC—4) ----------- 7. 06-08-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for reviewing order dated 20-12-2004 by which the interim order was passed and also for reviewing order dated 11.01.2005 by which the final order of disposal was passed in C.W.J.C. NO. 5857/04 . 3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by Opposite Party No. 6 for directing the respondents to remove encroachment made by the review petitioner and another person over Government Road used for public purpose. By order dated 20-12-2004, it was found that two reports submitted by the Collector and the Circle Officer, were contradictory and hence it was directed that measurement should be taken again in presence of both the officers, out of whom the Collector shall be the final authority to submit his - 2 - report and if the Collector finds that there are encroachments on the public way/road, then he shall be entitled to take steps for demolition of the encroachment. It was also noted that encroachment made by any person including the petitioner would not be allowed to stand. 4. When the said writ case was again taken up on 11.01.2005, learned counsel for the State submitted that encroachment complained of, had been removed and the said fact was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner and hence the proceeding was closed. Now the review petitioner has approached this court by filing this petition raising the grievance that the said order was passed behind his back and in compliance of the said order, construction made by him over his private land had been demolished and hence he was entitled to compensation also. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it is quite apparent that this court in the earlier writ petition has never ordered for removal of any construction made by anyone over his private land rather the removal of encroachment only over the public land was directed. Further more, order dated 20-12-2004 was an interim order for making enquiry by the authority concerned and for submitting its report regarding demolition of construction over the public land whereas, order dated 11.01.2005 is with regard to mere statements of the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the petitioner, whereafter the proceeding was closed. 6. In these circumstances, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of record nor does it find any merit in this - 3 - review petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, the review petitioner will be entitled to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance, if any portion of his construction over his private land had been demolished by the authorities. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)