In Manorma Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court's 3-judge bench passed an order which stated that the counsel for the petitioner submitted that "he is not getting instructions from the petitioner, In view of the above position, the special leave petition is dismissed for non-prosecution." The case had arisen out of impugned final judgment and order dated February 2, 2015 passed by the Division Bench of Chief Justice L. Narasimha Reddy and Justice Vikash Jain in in CWJC No. 5554/2013. The seven other respondents were: Principal Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Joint Director Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sitamarhi Sadar, Circle Officer, Riga, Sitamarhi, M/s. Riga Sugar Company Limited, through its President Sri Suraj Dev Shukla.
The present writ petition was filed in the High Court as a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a direction to the respondents to not disturb the play ground popularly known as ‘Brindaban Garden’ situated at Mauza Panchhor, P.S. Riga, District Sitamarhi said to be ‘gairmajarua aam land’. The petitioner had submitted that the land in question was settled on the respondent no. 8, M/s. Riga Sugar Company Limited, through order dated May 30, 998 passed by the Joint Director Consolidation, Muzaffarpur following a remand order dated April 1, 1996 passed by the High Court in CWJC Nos. 661 and 662 of 1984. It was claimed that the land so settled is recorded as ‘gairmajarua aam land’ in the name of the Government of Bihar in the survey khatian and was illegally settled in favour of the respondent no. 8 against the interest of the general public. It is stated that the land was being used as a play ground/park, for different festivals, etc., and that the settlement leads to interference with the functioning of the temple and the Sevaniketan Middle School, which are situated in the area.
The High Court found it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner. Admittedly the land in question was settled on the respondent no. 8 as far back in the year 1998. Such settlement does not appear to have been challenged, either by the petitioner or by anybody, and it is only after a long lapse of about approached this Court through the present Public Interest Litigation.
The Court observed: "There was remedy in the law, for challenging the order dated 30.05.1998 passed by the Joint Director Consolidation, Muzaffarpur at the appropriate time. That however, has not been done. Besides, this Court in its recent order dated 27.01.2012 in CWJC No. 454 of 2012 filed by the respondent no. 8 has even directed the Circle Officer to grant rent receipts to the respondent no. 8 after noticing that its name was recorded in the revenue records but the rent receipts had been granted only till the year 2001. The respondent no. 8 was further granted liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi as well as the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi for police protection in view of disturbance to its possession being
faced by it on account of local intervention of the villagers." The High Court's judgement had concluded: "the writ
petition cannot be maintained as a Public Interest Litigation and accordingly it is dismissed."
No comments:
Post a Comment