Collector directed to decide pending encroachment appeal within three months; writ petition closed with liberty.

The petitioner approached the Patna High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Officer, East Champaran, to provide police and magisterial assistance for implementing eviction orders passed in Encroachment Case No. 09/2017-18 and removing alleged encroachments and pucca structures from a public water body situated at Mauza-Narayanpur, East Champaran.

The petitioner also sought directions to facilitate construction of a public drain under the State Government’s “Saat Nischay Yojana” over the disputed land.

During the proceedings, Sujeet Kumar filed I.A. No. 01 of 2026 seeking impleadment, stating that he had filed Appeal No. 134/26-27 before the Collector, East Champaran, against the Circle Officer’s order dated 30 July 2026, and that the appeal was pending.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that the petitioner had no information regarding the appeal and lacked locus to contest it.

Whether, in view of the pendency of Appeal No. 134/26-27 before the Collector, East Champaran, the High Court should issue directions for immediate execution of the eviction orders and removal of the alleged encroachments.

Whether the pending appeal should be directed to be decided within a specified time, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek further relief if any cause survived thereafter.

The Court applied the procedural principle that where a statutory or administrative appeal concerning the underlying order is pending before the competent authority, the appellate authority should ordinarily be permitted to decide the matter before the High Court grants consequential coercive directions.

The Court also exercised its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by declining to adjudicate the requested mandamus at that stage, while ensuring expeditious consideration of the pending appeal.

No specific statutory provision, precedent, or substantive rule concerning encroachment or public water bodies was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The relief sought by the petitioner was directly connected with the eviction proceedings and the Circle Officer’s order.

Since an appeal against that order was pending before the Collector in Appeal No. 134/26-27, the Court considered it appropriate not to issue immediate directions for execution or removal of the alleged encroachments.

Instead, it directed the competent appellate authority—the Collector, East Champaran—to decide the appeal, preferably within three months from the date of the judgment.

In light of that direction, and upon the petitioner’s submission that the petition could presently be closed, the Court preserved the petitioner’s right to approach it again if any cause survived after the appellate decision.

It directed the Collector, East Champaran, to decide Appeal No. 134/26-27 preferably within three months from 16 September 2026.

The writ petition was consequently closed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek further relief if necessary; pending applications were also disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Collector for information and compliance.