Non-party lacks locus standi to challenge writ order directing statutory appeal in land encroachment proceedings.

The appellant, Sanjeet Kumar Rai, filed a complaint with the Circle Officer alleging encroachment by Respondent No. 9 (Subhash Kumar). The Circle Officer found Respondent No. 9 to be an encroacher and initiated dispossession.

Respondent No. 9 challenged this action in C.W.J.C. No. 6955 of 2024. The learned Single Judge, via order dated 11.07.2024, directed Respondent No. 9 to file a statutory appeal and granted a four-week status quo.

The appellant, who was never impleaded in the writ proceedings despite allegedly filing a vakalatnama, filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) claiming he was a necessary party and that material facts were concealed from the Writ Court.

1. Whether the appellant has locus standi to challenge the Writ Court’s order when he was neither a party to the original writ petition nor sought impleadment therein.

2. Whether the non-joinder of the appellant in the writ petition necessitates interference with the Single Judge's direction to exhaust statutory remedies.

The Court considered Order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the non-joinder of parties, while emphasizing the burden on a third party to seek formal impleadment.

It further applied the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, which provides a statutory appellate mechanism against orders passed by a Revenue Officer under Section 6(1) of the same Act.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the Single Judge erred in not hearing him, noting that merely filing a vakalatnama without making an appearance or seeking formal impleadment is insufficient.

The Court observed that the primary dispute is between the State (acting through the Circle Officer) and Respondent No. 9 regarding public land; the appellant’s role was limited to that of a complainant.

Since the Writ Court did not decide on the merits of the encroachment but merely directed the aggrieved party to approach the competent statutory appellate authority under Section 11 of the Act, there was no prejudice caused to the appellant.

The Court found that Respondent No. 9 had already complied with the Single Judge’s direction by filing Encroachment Appeal No. 48 of 2024.

The Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of, maintaining the Single Judge’s order directing the parties to resolve the dispute before the statutory appellate authority.