KASHI PRASAD SAHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Indrani Senchaudhuri, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents and perused the show cause filed on behalf of the Respondents.

(2.) In this writ application, the Petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate order for payment of compensation on account of illegal demolition of the building standing on plot No. 31 under khata No. 94 of village Behragora. The Petitioner's case is that sometime in the year 1988, a land encroachment proceeding was initiated against the tenants inducted by the Petitioner's father in respect of plot No. 135. It appears that in the said proceeding, final order was passed for removal of encroachment. Against that order, the Petitioner's father preferred two appeals being BPLE Appeal No. 32 and 33 of 1989-90. The stand taken by the father of the Petitioner was that actually the building stands over plot No. 31 and not over Plot No. 135, which is evident from the memo of appeal filed by the father of the Petitioner, which is annexure-1 to this writ application. The appellate authority i.e. the Addl. Dy. Commissioner by order dated 18.5.1990 remitted the matter to the circle officer for passing an order afresh after physical verification of the land/plot in question. The contention of the Petitioner is that without disposing of the appeal the concerned Respondents demolished a portion of the building of the Petitioner standing over plot No. 31 (old plot No. 20).

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent State stating inter alia, that the encroachment proceeding was initiated in respect of unauthorised construction over plot No. 135 of mouza Radhala Bandh and not against plot No. 31 of mouza Behragora. It is further stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 at Patna, the Dy. Commissioner, Singhbhum was directed to direct the concerned officers to take action for demolition of encroachment over the public land. Pursuant thereto, a public notice was circulated and announcement was made by loud speaker to all concerned to remove encroachment and, thereafter illegal encroachments have been demolished. It is further contended on behalf of the Respondents that the building which was demolished falls under plot No. 135 and that construction was in the midst of road.