BAIJNATH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India under the following circumstances: The Union of India had filed a case against the petitioner, for his eviction, under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, and the case was numbered as L. E. case No. 30 of 1967. The petitioner was served with a notice to show cause and he appeared in the case. The case is now pending in the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dinapore (Patna) since its institution. It is stated that the case was ready for disposal and during the pendency of the case this Court had declared Sections 6 and 19 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act as ultra vires by its judgment and order dated the 1st April, 1969, passed in C. W. J. C. 1138 of 1968 and others. It is stated that on the 12th June, 1969 the petitioner filed an application praying that the case may be dropped. It is stated that the petitioner had moved the authority on the decision of this Court for dropping the proceeding and the case was ultimately adjourned to the 16th December, 1969. It is stated, further, that on the 16th December, 1969 no one had appeared for the Union of India, but still the case was adjourned to the 4th April, 1970. The petitioner has filed Annexure 6, dated the 9th/10th June, 1969 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department to all the Collectors asking them to pray for long adjournments to all pending cases under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act and keep the cases pending until the Supreme Court of India gives its decision in appeal against the judgment of this Court aforesaid. According to the petitioner, his case is being adjourned on the basis of these instructions. Therefore, the petitioner has come up to this Court praying that this Annexure be quashed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the instructions contained in Annexure 6 should not have been followed for adjourning the case. Sri Shreenath Singh appearing for the State of Bihar has contended that learned counsel for the petitioner has misinterpreted Annexure 6 in alleging that the Collectors have been directed not to hear land encroachment cases. According to Sri Singh, Annexure 6 merely incorporated an order of the Government to all the Collectors to pray for adjournments and keep the cases pending. It is obvious that the petitioner is being harassed when his case is kept pending and is being adjourned occasionally when the judgment of this Court has given a definite conclusion with respect to validity of Sections 6 and 19 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. All authorities dealing with land encroachment cases must now follow this decision, and accordingly, it is directed that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dinapore, Patna, Respondent No. 2 must dispose of the case filed against the petitioner within one month from the date , of receipt of the record from this Court, in accordance with law. The record may be sent down expeditiously. The writ application is, therefore, allowed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order for costs.