SATYA NARAIN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner established a &aposGumti&apos (kiosk) on a piece of land being part of a large plot belonging to the Bettiah estate. He set up the Gumti after the piece of land was given to him on the basis of an agreement duly executed on behalf of the Bettiah estate. It is alleged that he was forcibly removed from there by respon dent no. 5 (who is an Inspector of Police and at the material time was posted as the Officer Incharge of Bettiah Town police station) acting in collusion with and at the instance of respondent no. 9 (a private individual). The petitioner failed to get any help from the district administration and was, therefore, forced to come to this court in this writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs.

(2.) IT is stated in the writ petition that earlier the petitioner, along with several others, had set up a Gumti in Bettiah town over a public drain by the side of a municipal road. In that Gumti, he carried on a Kirana shop, that being his only source of livelihood. In 1993 the district administration launched a beautification drive for Bettiah town in course of which all the Gumti holders at that place including the petitioner, were directed to remove their Gumties set up over public drain. The Gumti holders thus being displaced then approached respondent no. 7 (the Manager, Bettiah Estate) for their rehabilitation on plot no. 5227 which is a large plot lying on the other side of the public drain. The Manager, Bettiah Estate agreed to let out pieces of land measuring 12&apos x 8&apos for constructing shops to each of the 39 Gumti holders who were being displaced by the district administration. In this regard, he also asked for the approval of respondent no. 10, the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bihar being the competent authority for Bettiah Estate court of wards. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 10 accorded his approval on certain terms and conditions, by letter, dated 6.11.1993 (Annexure -1). In terms of the rehabilitation scheme evolved by the Bettiah Estate and in pursuance of the approval accorded by respondent no. 10, a written agreement was drawn up between the parties which was executed by the Manager, Bettiah Estate on 30.9.1993 and by the allottees (the displaced Gumti holders) on 10.11.1993 after the respondent no. 10 had accorded his approval. As provided by the agreement each of the 39 Gumti holders including the petitioner was allotted a piece of land at a rental of Rs. 100.00 per month.

(3.) LATER on it appears that a triangular dispute arose between the petitioner and some of the other allottees, the officials of the Bettiah Estate and respondent no. 9. While the officials of the Bettiah Estate were trying to evict both the allottees and respondent no. 9 through lawful means, respondent no. 9 allegedly got the petitioner thrown out forcibly and unlawfuly with the help and assistance of respondent no. 5.