STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SHAILESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay, learned Advocate for the State/Appellant and Mr. Dronacharya, learned Sr. Advocate for the grieving Respondent.

(2.) The boundary wall of the respondent was demolished as it was found to be an encroachment on public road. Notice dtd. 9/4/2015 with respect to demolition was given to the respondent on 14/4/2015, to which he could not reply on merits but only wanted adjournment. However, a final order was passed on 15/4/2015, whereafter the demolition was carried out on 17/4/2015.

(3.) The State contends that the boundary wall was causing hindrance to approximately three thousand people. There was no reason why it should have been allowed to remain where it was erected, especially when this encroachment was continuing since 2008. It was further contended that a final order was passed on 15/4/2015, which order could have been appealed against by the respondent, which provision of law, the respondent never availed of. Had the respondent even intimated the authorities that he intended to challenge the order, the demolition process could have awaited the result of the order in appeal. Since there was no indication to the authorities that the order shall be appealed against, the execution of the order was carried out on 17/4/2015 ostensibly on the ground of such encroachment on public land continuing for a long time. Lastly, it has been contended that the learned Single Judge had over-assessed the quantum of damage without any quantification and the same should not be allowed to be continued. He further submits that since by order dtd. 7/7/2022, the issue of correctness of the order directing for demolition has already been decided by the learned Single Judge and which stands affirmed by the observations of this Bench on 7/7/2022, the limited argument in this appeal is only with respect to quantum of the compensation which was directed by the learned Single Judge.