Patna HC Gives Gopalganj Officials 3 Months To Conclude Case Over Alleged Encroachment On Village ‘Aam Rasta’

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should intervene where proceedings to determine and address the alleged encroachment had been initiated but not concluded.

The court held

The Court directed the respondent authorities to conclude the proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, as expeditiously as possible and within three months from receipt or production of the order.

It also directed

The writ petition was disposed of with that direction.

01Facts

The petitioner alleged that the public road (Aam Rasta) recorded on Khata No. 282, Plot No. 2284, at Mauza Gansia, Gopalganj, had been encroached upon.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

After his complaint, the District Public Complaint Redressal Officer, by order dated 17 June 2023, directed the Circle Officer, Manjha, to make an inquiry and measurement and, if encroachment was found, initiate proceedings and remove it in accordance with law.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The State respondents stated that proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, had been initiated following a complaint and an Amin’s report, and that statutory notices and inquiry were underway.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The petitioner acknowledged that proceedings had commenced but contended they remained unconcluded.

p. 4 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should intervene where proceedings to determine and address the alleged encroachment had been initiated but not concluded.

p. 4 · ¶ 4–6

ii.Whether the authorities should be directed to conclude those proceedings within a specified period.

p. 5 · ¶ 7

03Law Applied

The proceedings were governed by the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, including the notice procedures under Sections 3 and 6(2), as identified in the respondents’ counter-affidavit.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The Court’s order proceeded on the basis that the authorities should complete the pending statutory process in accordance with law; it did not decide whether an encroachment existed or state any broader rule concerning the merits of such proceedings.

p. 5 · ¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 Section 3Section 6

04Reasoning

The Court noted that proceedings under the 1956 Act had been initiated against the alleged encroachers but were still pending.

p. 4 · ¶ 4–6

Since the statutory process had not concluded, the Court did not determine the encroachment allegation or order immediate removal. Instead, it directed the authorities to complete the pending proceedings expeditiously, preserving the statutory process.

p. 5 · ¶ 7