Patna High Court
Jhugi Jhopri Sangharsh Morcha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 January, 2017
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17067 of 2008
===========================================================
Jhuggi Jhopri Sangharsh Morcha, Patna New Market Mithapur (Ashok Market),
Bandar Bagicha Patna through its Vice President Surendra Mandal
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary
2. The District Magistrate, Patna
3. The Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Lok through its Vice
Chairman
4. The Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Lok,
Patna
5. The Secretary, Land Reform Development of Bihar, Patna
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna
7. The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Government of India, New Delhi
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rejendra Pd.Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Kumar Alok, SC 7
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petitioner claims to be a member of the petitioner Jhuggi Jhopri Sangharsh Morcha who have put up their hutments over government lands in question and have come to the Court seeking a direction to the State authorities not to remove them from the place of their occupation or, alternatively, settle them at any other place.
In the considered opinion of the Court, the writ Court being a Court of law, primarily, it is for the petitioner to show that Patna High Court CWJC No.17067 of 2008 dt.24-01-2017 2/2 there is infraction of some legal and fundamental right. In the present case, admittedly, the members of the petitioner Morcha have put their structures on government lands without there being any order, much less by a competent authority, in their favour.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court, exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is also a Court of Equity. This Court notices the arguments and can only comment that there cannot be any exception to such position, but the only caveat is that equity has to follow law and the Court cannot, dehors the law, proceed to pass an order in cases where equity is sought against the law.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any ground for interference and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Tahir/-
AFR/NAFR U