IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1576 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18138 of 2019 ====================================================== Yogi Yadav Son of Lal Bihari Yadav, Resident of Village- Tadhawa Nandpur, P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Vivek Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms (Revenue) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Sri Mihir Kumar Singh, The Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 3. Kundan Kumar Singh, The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. Sanjay Kumar, The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Bettiah Sadar, West Champaran. 5. Binod Kumar, The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Bettiah, West Champaran. 6. Hemendra Kumar, The Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer), Bairiya, Circle, West Champaran. 7. Surendra Kumar, The Circle Amin Bairiya Circle, District- West Champaran. 8. Pranay Kumar, S.I. The Officer in Charge, Bairiya Police Station, District- West Champaran. 9. Pana Lal Yadav, Son of Late Bacha Yadav, Resident of Village- Tadhawa Nandpur, P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lokesh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam (Aag 12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 4 18-07-2025 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 4.9.2019, passed in CWJC No. 18138 of 2019 and CWJC No. 10540 of 2018, the Circle Officer, Bairiya has though passed the final order on 16.3.2018 in Encroachment Case No. 27 of 2017- 18, whereafter notices under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Patna High Court MJC No.1576 of 2022(4) dt.18-07-2025 2/2 Land Encroachment Act, 1956 dated 16.3.2018 was also issued by the Circle Officer, Bairiya, West Champaran, whereupon then the house of the present petitioner had been demolished but the fact remains that parcha / bandobasti is existing in favour of the present petitioner and the cancellation proceedings thereof are pending. Nonetheless, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that no information or any document with regard to the settlement or right, title and interest of the petitioner in the plot / land in question was furnished to the opposite parties prior to demolition. 2. In view of the conflicting claims of the parties, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition for redresssal of his subsisting grievances. Liberty, so sought, is granted. 3. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed off. Ajay/- (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) U