IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4858 of 2010 1. Sona Raut S/O Late Ramchandra Raut R/O Moh Belvanma, P.S.Motihari Town, Distt-East Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate East Champaran, Motihari 2. District Magistrate East Champaran, Motihari 3. Mahatma Gandhi Champaran Smarak Samittee Through Its Secretary Station Road, P.S.Motihari Town, Distt-East Champaran 4. Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Champaran Smarak Samittee Station Road, P.S. Motihari Town, Distt-East Champaran With CWJC No.6867 of 2010 1. Shyama Raut, S/O Late Ram Chandra Raut, Owner Of Shop No.2,R/O Mohalla Belvanma,P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 2. Ramesh Mahto, S/O Late Sitaram Mahto, Owner Of Shop No.3,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.- Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 3. Uma Shankar Prasad, S/O Late Jagdeo Mahto, Owner Of Shop No.4, R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 4. Bijay Kumar, S/O Sri Prahlad Prasad, Owner Of Shop No.5,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 5. Ramashish Thakur, S/O Late Gagandeo Thakur, Owner Of Shop No.6, R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 6. Rishikesh Kumar, S/O Ambika Kumar, Owner Of Shop No.7,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 7. Amod Kumar Verma, S/O Basudeo Prasad Verma, Owner Of Shop No.8, R/O Mohalla Belvanma,P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 8. Rajiv Bharti, S/O Sri Rama Kant Bharti, Owner Of Shop No.9,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 9. Sunita Devi, W/O Ganesh Singh, Owner Of Shop No.10,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 10. Jageshwar Prasad, S/O Late Ramsharan Prasad, Owner Of Shop No.11, R/O Mohalla Belvanma,P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 11. Manan Mahto, S/O Kanhay Mahto, Owner Of Shop No.12,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 12. Neeraj Kumar, S/O Madan Prasad, Owner Of Shop No.13,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 13. Anil Kumar, S/O Ram Babu Singh, Owner Of Shop No.14,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 14. Raja Ram Mahto, S/O Gopal Mahto, Owner Of Shop No.15,R/O Mohalla Belvanma,P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 15. Shrat Chand, S/O Sri Narayan Singh, Owner Of Shop No.16,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 16. Sanjay Kumar, S/O Tej Narayan Singh, Owner Of Shop No.17,R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 17. Swayam Prakash Thakur, S/O Rajeshwar Thakur, Owner Of Shop No.18,R/O Mohalla Belvanma,P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 2 18. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, S/O Late Shyamdeo Singh, Owner Of Shop No.19, R/O Mohalla Belvanma,P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 19. Om Prakash Gupta, S/O Late Rajeshwari Prasad, Owner Of Shop No.20, R/O Mohalla Belvanma,P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 20. Rama Kant Prasad Singh, S/O Late Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Owner Of Shop No.21, R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District- East Champaran. 21. Ram Prakash Pandit, S/O Sri Jatadhari Pandit, Owner Of Shop No.22, R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 22. Abhay Kumar Mishra, S/O Birendra Mishra, Owner Of Shop No.23, R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 23. Prabhat Ranjan Prasad, S/O Late Janardan Prasad, Owner Of Shop No.24, R/O Mohalla Belvanma, P.S.-Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 2. District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 3. Mahatma Gandhi Champaran Smarak Samittee through its Secretary, Station Road, P.S.- Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 4. Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Champaran Smarak Samittee Station Road, P.S.- Motihari Town , District-East Champaran. ----------- 6 06.09.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners herein claiming to be settlees under an agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondent- Mahatma Gandhi Champaran Smarak Samittee respondent Nos. 3 and 4 of which the respondent No.2, the District Magistrate, Champaran Motihari is the Chairman, have filed the writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the respondents from interfering in any manner with the possession of the shops allotted to them by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, Samittee. It is the contention of the petitioners that pursuant to a decision taken by the society of settling the shop in and around the Smarak Samitee area, the petitioners were granted settlement of the shop subject to the stipulation of investment being made by the 3 petitioners themselves for construction of the shops. It is the contention of the petitioners that the shops in question were constructed from the funds collected from the petitioners and the like. Subsequently, on the basis of a decision taken by the Committee, the shops in question were sought to be removed with a view to remove encroachment from the land appurtenant to the Samitee area. It is the contention of the petitioners that the site in question neither being heritage site nor an ancient monument or an archaeological site, there was no occasion for the respondent to disturb the petitioner from the shops in question in a summary manner by mere issuance of a notice in question. It is contended that the shops having been constructed out of the funds of the petitioners, they certainly could not be termed as an encroacher over the land. Considering the circumstances this Court vide order dated 12.04.2010 restrained the respondent authorities from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, the District Magistrate, East Champaran and in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit the District Magistrate has admitted that no coercive steps is being taken by the respondent authorities to oust the petitioners from the premises in question and that even the notice does not refer to any such coercive steps being taken. The District Magistrate further submits that if the premises is not vacated by the petitioners as per the notice the premises would be vacated through legal process. The statement of the District Magistrate made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit answers the query of the petitioners that they would not be ousted from their 4 respective shops/premises without following the due process of law. In view of the categorical statement made by the District Magistrate, East Champaran as found in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is disposed of. The petitioners if so desire, may approach the respondent- Smarak Samitee for providing them with any alternative site in case the Samittee decides to vacate the petitioners from their respective shops and which request may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)