Kiran Devi vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

“(i) For issuance of the writ in the nature of quo-warranto or any other writ to ask from the respondent commons as to why and under which law

they are creating encroachment Over the Khatiyani Land of District Board, Arwal bearing Khata no. 141, Plot No. 545, Area 0.34 Decimals of village

Kinjer Nagala, District Arwal under wrong receiving of NOC of another land constructing Park and statue by the M.L.A. fund.

(ii) For this Hon'ble Court is further prayed to give direction to the State Government and its instrumentalities to stop illegal construction over the

Khatiyani land of District Board, Arwal and also to remove encroachment if any found over the land of District Board, Arwal.

iii) For this Hon'ble Court is further prayed for removal of encroachments from the premises/ properties of these state Government and its

instrumentalities its Respondents Common.

(iv) For this Hon'ble Court is further prayed to give direction to all State Government authorities and its instrumentalities for speedy eviction of illegal

occupants under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 and under the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act, 2001 as contained in

section 75 A(1)(iv) and under section 81. District Collectors Cum-District Magistrate also be directed to take steps for eviction of illegal/unauthorized

occupants of common land of District Board, Arwal for the use of District Board Arwal which is to be used as per resolution by the members of

District Board, Arwal and it is also prayed that as per Supreme Court order passed in Jagpal Singh case 2011 and in another matter Union of India

Versus State of Gujrat & Ors. SLA(Civil 8519/2006) which is still pending through an order on 29 September 2009 come to defence of public Spaces.

In the 2009 Hon'ble Supreme Court direction, State Governments were asked to ensure that no temple, mosque or any other place of worship was

allowed on Public Space, street or property and relocation of such structures built alongside national and State highways public parks or other public

places and that there he reviewed on a case to case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible.

(v) For that Hon'ble Court is further prayed to hold that State Govt. and its instrumentalities can't made construction upon the land of District Board'

without proposal passed by the Member of District Board in accordance of law of Panchayati Raj Act.

(vi) For this Hon'ble Court is further prayed for issuance of any other writ/writs, direction/ directions for which the petitioner may be found entitled in

the given facts and circumstances of this case.

(vii) For this Hon'ble Court in further prayed to interfere to the matter of Govt. policy it is demonstrably arbitrary, capricious, irrational, discriminatory

and violative of constitutional or statutory provisions.â€​

After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the

concerned respondents to consider and decide the representation which the petitioner shall be filing for redressal of the grievance(s).

Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose it

of expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order.

Statement accepted and taken on record.

Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, namely District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Arwal and The Superintendent of

Police, Arwal, to consider and dispose it of expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of its filing along with a copy of

this order.

It is clarified that the proceedings, during the time of current Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode, unless the parties otherwise

mutually agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode.

Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law.

We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same

shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch.

Needless to add, while considering such representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded to the

parties.

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if the need so rises subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action.

We have not expressed any opinion on merits.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.