SURYA NARAYAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner apprehending his dispossession and demolition in execution of the order passed by the Circle Officer, Andhrathari, has come to this Court making a complaint that the order passed by the Circle Officer is illegal as no reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner and that the authority concerned has been acting contrary to the earlier directions of this Court, In support of the submission the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon as Judgment of this Court in the matter of Bechan Mandal V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 2997 of 1999) decided on 27 -8 -1999), to contend that the directions issued in the matter of Arun Mukherjee are not of universal application are to be read in reference to the context in which those have been made. He submits that two neighbours of the present petitioner had come to this Court and this Court directed the authorities not to take any action against the said petitioners contrary to law and further required the authorities to hold some enquiry or issue some directions in accordance with the law.

(2.) THE respondents in their counter -affidavit submit that the petitioner 'scontention that no hearing was afforded to the petitioner, no notice was issued and no enquiry was made by the Circle Officer, was wrong, placing reliance upon Annexure -D to the counter -affidavit it is contended that the petitioner was issued a notice, his reply was detained and after hearing the petitioner the Circle Officer concerned has recorded the finding that the petitioner made certain encroachment on the public land by stacking old articles which were creating disturbance in the free flow of traffic and was likely to create the same in future also. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to raise all these questions of fact in proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) FROM perusal of Annexure -D to the counter -affidavit, it would clearly appear that a show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to satisfy the authority that the land in his possession was his personal land or he had some title over it. The Circle Officer ultimately found that though he petitioner was ascertaining that he was the owner of the property but the petitioner had no supporting documents in his favour. From this order, it clearly appears that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and on availability of certain facts the authority concerned had recorded a finding against the interest of the petitioner.