IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6040 of 2009 RAM BILASH PRASAD, son of late Jethan Mahto of Mohalla Mithapur, P.S. Jakanpur, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 5. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna 6. The District Magistrate, Patna 7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 15. 7.5.2010 The petitioner as pro bono publico has preferred this writ petition for issue of an appropriate direction for removal of encroachment on East Gardiner Road. This Court on 18.12.2009 had passed the following order: “ Annexure-3 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed today in the court on behalf of respondent no.3 discloses a disturbing trend. According to the Executive Engineer, Patliputra Building Division, Patna, the illegal constructions and encroachments made on the public land near East Gardiner Road had been removed under orders of the court but the concerned Assistant Engineer 2 of Golghar Subdivision has reported on 12.12.2009 that again illegal constructions have been erected at that very place and in that connection he has lodged a police case. By ad hoc arrangement under orders of this court this situation can be tackled for some time but it is for the State to find out and create a system which shall effectively prevent recurring of such encroachment upon valuable public land in the heart of Patna town. For this a high level meeting of all concerned Secretaries/ Principal Secretaries particularly of Building Construction Department, Depart of Home and Road Construction Department as well as Municipal Commissioner should be held under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. The said Committee is requested to keep in mind that this court has a suspicion that authorities at the lower level may also be hand in glove with the encroachers specially over valuable land in the city area. Hence, a hierarchy of officials must be saddled with responsibility to hold periodical inspection and they must be provided with enough power to prevent such encroachment over valuable land in the town area. They must also consider and provide for fixing responsibility for taking action 3 against the concerned officers in case such encroachment is not reported but subsequently detected in the concerned area particularly after the officials have been given responsibility as well as powers. We expect that this will take care of possible alliance between some petty officials and the land mafias who seem to be active in the town area. The required steps should be taken at an early date preferably within four weeks. Put up this matter under the same heading after four weeks. In the meantime, the District authorities shall make the particular area in question free of encroachment and ensure that it is not encroached again.” It is submitted by Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the State, that steps are being taken and notification has been issued on 25.4.2010 to remove encroachment. At this juncture, be it noted Mr. Arshad Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, by filing an application for intervention on behalf of one Reyazuddin prayed for some time to vacate the encroachment. In view of aforesaid undertakings given by the State Government vide issuing a notification on 25.4.2010 we dispose of the petition by directing that the 4 step for removal of unauthorized encroachment be taken as per law. As far as intervener is concerned, he may be permitted to remain for a period of three months from today as he has come forward to voluntarily remove the encroachment. Needless to emphasize if there is any rehabilitation scheme it will be open to the intervener to file an application before the competent authority which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. We may state in categorical terms such filing of application would not extend the period of time that has been granted for vacating the premises. No application for extension shall be entertained. If the intervener does not vacate the premises the functionaries of the State are at liberty to proceed to take possession forthwith as the same shall be taken on the basis of undertaking given. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/