Showing posts with label Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Show all posts

Monday, August 18, 2025

Justice Sandeep Kumar's order is error free: Chief Justice Vipul Pancholi led Division Bench

In Parshuram Rai vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue & Land Reform Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed a 8-page long judgment dated August 7, 2025 dismissed the petition. This is the 16th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice. He concluded:"when it is not in dispute that the appellant/original petitioner is an encroacher and is in possession of the land without any authority of law since long and when the learned Single Judge already granted him protection up to 30th June, 2024, we are of the view that no further relief can be granted to the appellant/original petitioner in the present appeal. Learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order and, therefore, no interference is required in the present appeal. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed."

The Letters Patent Appeal was filed under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules against the 3-page long order dated April 25, 2024 rendered by Justice Sandeep Kumar, the Single Judge in CWJC No. 8186 of 2023, whereby the Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant/original petitioner by observing that the application submitted by the appellant/original petitioner under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act shall be decided by the concerned authorities by 15th June, 2024 and appellant/original petitioner shall not be removed till 30th June, 2024. 

The counsel for the appellant/original petitioner contended that Single Judge gave direction to the respondent authority to decide the representation/application of the appellant/original petitioner before June 15, 2024, despite which no decision was taken by the respondent authority, and only on May 31, 2025, the appellant/original petitioner was informed that his application was already rejected in the year 2020. However, copy of the said order has not been supplied to the appellant/original petitioner, despite which the appellant/original petitioner has filed the appeal against the said order before the appellate authority, which is still pending. Learned counsel thereafter submitted that now recently, i.e., on yesterday, the appellant/original petitioner has received notice from the concerned respondent authority in which it has been stated that as the appellant/original petitioner is an encroacher, the encroachment will be removed. The appellant/original petitioner has, therefore, filed the urgent note, pursuant to which, now the matter has been listed.

The counsel submitted that as per the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, the respondent authorities are required to give alternate land to the homeless persons. However, as the appeal filed by the appellant/original petitioner is pending before the appellate authority, the respondent authorities be restrained from removing the so-called encroachment made by the appellant/original petitioner. He urged that the impugned notice issued by the respondent be stayed till final disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant/original petitioner before the concerned appellate authority. 

The counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal may not be entertained because the appellant/original petitioner subsequently challenged the order after a delay of 412 days. It was also submitted that if the appellant/original petitioner was having any grievance with regard to the non-consideration of his representation/application, it was always open for the appellant/original petitioner to file application under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the concerned Single Judge. However, as the appellant/original petitioner, who was an encroacher and was in possession of the land in question, did not file any application before this Court, and now when the respondents have pointed out to the appellant/original petitioner that his representation/application was rejected long back in the year 2020, he filed the present appeal. It was further submitted that it was not in dispute that the appellant/original petitioner was an encroacher and now only request of the appellant/original petitioner is that alternate land should be provided to him. 

Justice Pancholi observed:"We are of the view that when the representation/application of the appellant/original petitioner was already rejected long back, appellant/original petitioner must be aware about the aforesaid aspect, despite which it appears that appellant/original petitioner did not disclose the same before the learned Single Judge when the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition with the aforesaid direction. Even otherwise, now it is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that he has already filed appeal before the appellate authority challenging the decision which has been taken by the respondent authority in the year 2020."

Justice Kumar's order reads:"From the pleadings and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is an encroacher and therefore, there is no need of any interference in the order of the Circle Officer for directing for removal of removal of encroachment. 3. This application is dismissed with direction to the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner which has been filed for allotment of a plot under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. 4. The pendency of this application does not give any right to the petitioner who is an encroacher to encroach upon the land. The encroachment should be removed forthwith. 5. The application of the petitioner under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act shall be decided by the concerned authority by the 15th of June, 2024. 6. The petitioner shall not be removed till 30th of June, 2024." 

Notably in a subsequent order dated June 5, 2023 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad recorded that the petitioner had shown to the High Court a copy of the notice contained in Memo No. 835 dated 27.05.2023 wherein the Anchal Adhikari, Aurai, Muzaffarpur has informed to the Sub-Divisional Officer that today is the date fixed for providing police force for purpose of removal of encroachment in connection with Encroachment Case No. 01 of 2014-15. Reference has also been made to a writ application filed by one Vinod Kumar Rai versus the State of Bihar and Others. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has appeared in the encroachment case and filed a show cause reply on 31.03.2023 before the Circle Officer but no action has been taken thereon. It was further stated that one Vinod Kumar who is a ward member of Gram Panchayat Raj Dharharwa filed a writ application being CWJC No. 2552 of 2023 seeking removal of encroachment whereafter the Circle Officer issued notice for removal of encroachment. The petitioner was made party in CWJC No. 2552 of 2023. The petitioner was not been heard by the Circle Officer. He too had observed"Till next hearing of the matter, the respondents shall not
take any action towards demolition of the house of the petitioner which is said to be standing on the disputed land."