IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5552 of 2010 1. Premniti Prasad Singh S/O Late Singheshwar Prasad Singh R/O Fort Area, Munger, P.S.Kotwali, Distt-Munger Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through The Secretary, Home Special Department Bihar, Patna 2. District Magistrate Munger 3. Khas Mahal Officer Munger 4. Sub Divisional Officer Munger, Distt-Munger 5. Superintendent Of Police Munger 6. Mani Devi W/O Srimohan Singh R/O Vill Laskara, P.S.Sangrampur, Distt-Munger ---------------------------------- 2. 06.9.2011. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Assisting counsel to Standing Counsel no.8 for the State. The writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Khas Mahal Officer, Munger as contained in letter dated 27.2.2007, directing the Sub Divisional Officer, Munger to remove the encroachment from the land bearing Tauji No.1333, Khata no.28, Khesra no.152, jamabandi no.29 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. A further direction has been sought against the respondent authorities including the Khas Mahal Officer, Munger to refrain from disturbing the petitioner over the plot in question. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the District Magistrate cum 2 Collector, Munger whereby the Sub divisional Officer, Munger has been asked to take appropriate action in the light of the earlier directions contained in letter no.53 dated 27.2.2007. The order of the District Magistrate is placed at Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also challenged the encroachment Case No.1 of 2008-09 in which notices under section 3 have been served upon the petitioner and the private respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that his father Late Singheshwar Prasad Singh was a tenant in the house of Late Nirapad Mukherjee situated over the plot in question. The said plot of land was a Khas Mahal land and had been leased out to Late Nirapad Mukherjee under the Khas Mahal provisions. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had purchased the plot in question in the year 1978 from Anil Kumar Mukherjee, legal heir of Late Nirapad Mukherjee, the original Lease holder. As according to the respondents, the said Lease holders did not have sanction of the competent authority being the Collector of the district, to part with the land, an order was issued by the Khas Mahal Officer, contained in 3 letter no.53 dated 27.2.2007 directing the Sub Divisional officer to remove the encroachment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the Khas Mahal Officer, as present in letter dated 27.2.2007, came before this court in C.W.J.C.No.2792 of 2007 and a bench of this court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to pursue his matter before the Collector, Munger. It is the case of the petitioner that despite drawing the attention of the Collector, Munger vide representation placed at Annexure-13, filed by the brother of the petitioner and vide Annexure-17 filed by the petitioner, both dated 22.3.2010, the Collector, Munger without examining the claim of the petitioner in the back drop of the circumstances stated therein, vide memo no.44 dated 19.3.2010 mechanically directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Munger to carry out the direction as contained in the letter being no. 53 dated 27.2.2007 issued by the Khas Mahal officer, by misreading the directions of this court passed in C.W.J.C.No.2792 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court even while declining to 4 examine the claim of the petitioner, had granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Collector, Munger for transfer of the land and thus an obligation was cast upon the Collector, Munger to consider the claim of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is contended that the action of the Collector, Munger in ignoring the applications filed by the petitioner and his brother, despite the concession given by this court in its order dated 27.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.2792 of 2007 rather directing the Sub Divisional Officer, Munger to proceed in terms of the earlier directions contained in the order of the Khas Mahal Officer dated 27.2.2007, which was subject matter of earlier round of proceedings, is not sustainable. Be that as it may. In view of the earlier directions of this court dated 27.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.2792 of 2007, this court would not express any opinion as regarding the claim of the petitioner over the plot in question or on the rival contentions as regarding the merits of the case. However, as a bench of this court while considering the 5 earlier application of the petitioner had granted him liberty to pursue his application before the Collector, Munger and which application of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-17 appears to have remained pending with the Collector, Munger, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to press his claim as set out in Annexures-13 and 17, before the Collector, Munger and who shall consider the claim put forth by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)