ANIL KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the proceedings as initiated by the Circle Officer, Rahika, District-Madhubani by which a restraint order was issued against the petitioners in respect of petitioners' enjoying land. Having issued the restraint order, the Circle Officer then made a recommendation to the Additional Collector.The Additional Collector instead of taking the proceeding further against the petitioners, stayed the order of the Circle Officer. Against this action of the Additional Collector, the Collector was then moved who has stayed the order of the Additional Collector in effect reviviing the restraint order against the petitioners restraining them from enjoining their property. Two persons have been made private respondents, who are alleged to be intervening and obstructing the right of the petitioners in enjoyment of their property. Respondent no.4 is represented through a lawyer and respondent no.5 has chosen to appear in person and happens to be an advocate.

(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed and parties have been heard and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) In my view, a very short issue arises in the present case. The petitioners questioned the authority and the jurisdiction of the respondents in taking up any such proceeding against the petitioners. The proceeding, as initiated is not disclosed to be a proceeding under any statutory provision. When confronted with the question as to what would be the provision of enactment under which the proceeding had been initiated by the Circle Officer against the petitioners and restraint order issued, both the private respondents agreed that they are not referable to any statutory enactment or exercise of any statutory power. It appears that the petitioners are in possession of the land purported to have been settled with them by Raj Darbhanga. That land is low land laying and had termed as a dranage point for neighboring residents. Petitioners were trying to fill up that land for their use. It was objected to by neighbours. For enforcement of their easement right, they filed a suit, inter alia, against the petitioners. The suit was in representative capacity and was ultimately dismissed holding that the plaintiff had no such easement right and the petitioners(defendants) could not be restrained from using those lands.