Patna High Court
MJC/1255/2018 of Lakshman Rai Vs The State Of Bihar Through Mr. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Da on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1255 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12369 of 2017 ====================================================== Lakshman Rai S/o Ram Ashish Rai, Resident of Village- Basant, P.O.- Kharka, P.S.- Jale, District- Darbhanga. ...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1255 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12369 of 2017
======================================================
Lakshman Rai S/o Ram Ashish Rai, Resident of Village- Basant, P.O.- Kharka, P.S.- Jale, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar through Mr. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
2.
Mr. Md. Mobil Ali Ansari, the Additional Collector, Darbhanga.
3.
Mr. Kamal Kumar, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Darbhanga.
4.
Mr. Kamal Kumar, the Circle Officer, Jale Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Lokesh, Advocate
For the State
:
Md. Khurshid Alam - AAG- 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026 The present contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner for willful disobedience of the writ order dated 30.11.2017, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 12369 of 2017, whereby the proposed contemnor was directed to conclude Encroachment Case No. 4 of 2010-11, if it was not already concluded.
2. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for proposed contemnor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though technically the order has been complied by concluding the Encroachment Case No. 4 of 2010-11. However, that conclusion is erroneous and fraudulent, because as per the Patna High Court MJC No.1255 of 2018(3) dt.19-08-2026
show-cause, the conclusion has been done on the basis of compromise between some individuals. He also submits that there is not even actual compromise. The person, who is said to have compromised the matter, is doing government job in Rajasthan. There was no occasion for him to come for compromise, but the Circle Officer concerned has shown that the matter has been compromised.
4. He also points out that as per the show-cause, the land in question has been settled by District Magistrate in favour of ones Mahavir Mishra and Vinod Mishra, which is also void and fraudulent. Government land cannot be transferred by District Magistrate without permission of the State Government as per B.T. Act.
5. Learned counsel for proposed contemnor, however, submits that for the sake of this contempt petition, it is a matter of fact that the writ order is complied with by way of concluding the Encroachment Case No. 4 of 2010-11. Hence, the present contempt petition does not survive and if the petitioner is aggrieved with the order on merit or otherwise, he can challenge the same in appropriate proceeding.
6. I agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the proposed contemnor that technically the writ order dated Patna High Court MJC No.1255 of 2018(3) dt.19-08-2026
30.11.2017, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 12369 of 2017 has been complied with by way of concluding the Encroachment Case No. 4 of 2010-11 and if the petitioner is aggrieved with the final order passed in Encroachment Case No. 4 of 2010-11 on merit or otherwise, he has liberty to prefer any appropriate proceeding to challenge the same.
6. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.
ravishankar/- (Jitendra Kumar, J.) U