IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2137 of 2025 ====================================================== 1. Mohan Kumar Singh, Son of Gangasagar Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Mahabirganj, P.S. Agrer, District- Rohtas, Bihar-821113. 2. Upendra Kumar, Son of Raj Ballah Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Mahabirganj, P.S. Agrer, District- Rohtas, Bihar-821113. 3. Devraj Chaudhary, Son of Sukhdayal Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Mahabirganj, P.S. Agrer, District- Rohtas, Bihar-821113. 4. Harendra Chaudhary, Son of Ramji Chaudhari, Resident of Village- Mahabirganj, P.S. Agrer, District- Rohtas, Bihar-821113. 5. Mahabir Prasad Gupta, Son of Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village- Agrer, P.S. Agrer, District- Rohtas, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas (Sasaram). 6. The Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Agrer Police Station, District- Rohtas. 7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas. 8. The Circle Officer, Agrer Block, District Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 02-05-2025 The petitioners in public interest is aggrieved by the construction of Mahila Police Barrack with ten beds, Patna High Court CWJC No.2137 of 2025(3) dt.02-05-2025 2/3 supposedly on a land which is associated with a temple, which was inherited by the descendents of one Basropan Yadav. 2. This statement of the petitioners has not been found to be factually correct. 3. The counter affidavit sworn by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) indicates that on such plot, there is a three-storeyed police building already existing from before. A requirement was felt for a separate police barrack for women for the reason that the campus of the police station is being used for parking of vehicles which are impounded or which are subject- matter of criminal cases. 4. The affidavit further indicates that the temple is situated in one part of the plots stated by the petitioners to be belonging to private parties. 5. It has also been alleged in the counter affidavit that in the garb of protecting the land of the temple, an attempt is being made by few of the persons Patna High Court CWJC No.2137 of 2025(3) dt.02-05-2025 3/3 of the village to appropriate the land of the Government which is registered as Anabad land of Bihar Sarkar. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the aforenoted contention in the counter affidavit. 7. In any view of the matter, on these disputed facts, no order can be passed. It would but be open for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for the needful, if so desired. 8. However, we do not find any public interest involved in the present case. 9. The petition is dismissed. Rajesh/Saurabh (Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ) (Partha Sarthy, J) U