SHANKER SARAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the boundary wall and portions of the residential house of the petitioner were forcibly demolished by the respondent -authorities. According to the State Counsel, the respondents were acting in compliance with the directions given by this Court in order passed from time to time in C.W.J.C. No. 2290/ 1990 : Arun Kumar Mukherjee v. State of Bihar.

(2.) In a recent decision in Bhola Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1999 (2) PLJR 851, the orders passed in the case of Arun Kumar Mukherjee were examined in detail and this Court came to find and hold that even while acting in compliance of the directions given in that case, it was imperative that certain steps were taken before the executive authorities could forcibly demolish the structure(s) on the grounds that it encroached upon road, road flanks and was causing obstruction in free flow of traffic. See para 51 of the decision in the case of Bhola Sah (supra).

(3.) From the records of this case, it is manifest that the forcible demolition of the boundary wall of the petitioner's house was carried out without following the requirements in terms of the directions given in the case of Arun Kumar Mukherjee and as explained in the decision in the case of Bhola Sah (supra).