AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, State and Mr.
Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation.
This case was being heard analogous to C.W.J.C. No.
16802 of 2013 and a common order was passed on 16.03.2017
directing for a fresh measurement taking into account the fixed point
as was shown in the Revenue map. The exercise was done as per the
order of the Court dated 16.03.2017 on 21.03.2017. The said order
was passed in presence of learned counsel of all the stake holders.
Today, a 4th supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the respondent no. 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 16802 of 2013, which
discloses that the said measurement has brought to light the fact that
there is encroachment by the present petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they
may be given time to reply to the said counter affidavit. They further
submitted that they were not allowed to take part in the measurement.
On a query of the Court as to why such fact has not been brought on
record by filing an affidavit, the reply is that the petitioners were
waiting for the present report. The Court finds such stand to be self
contradictory. If the petitioners were waiting for the present
measurement, it is clear that they were taking a chance, and thus,
willfully they were not participating in the measurement, if it is
accepted. They not having filed any affidavit to this effect is also
indicative of the fact that no such plea was taken by them before the
team which was measuring of allowing them to participate. Thus, an
issue which is a pure question of fact, not having been stated on oath
and only orally submitted before the Court today, cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation
informs the Court that in light of the measurement, encroachment
having been found by the petitioners on the land which was acquired
for the Patna Municipal Corporation, vigilance cases have been
instituted.
In view of such a situation, where substantive
vigilance cases have been instituted against the petitioners, this Court
does not deem it necessary to keep the present matter pending. The
petitioners shall be at liberty to pursue the matter in the vigilance
cases before the authorities in which order shall be passed after giving
opportunity of hearing to them, in accordance with law.
Thus, in the present case, at this stage, no judicial
interference is required.