Suresh Kashyap @ Suresh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Patna High Court 7 Dec 2020 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22930 Of 2018 (2020) 12 PAT CK 0294
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22930 Of 2018

Hon'ble Bench

Sanjay Karol, CJ; S. Kumar, J

Advocates

Jayram Sharma, Md.Khurshid Alam

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred
  • Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 21

Judgement Text

Translate:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

(i) For issuance of directing the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment, any structure, fill up, digging etc made so far and restore the ecology

of famous historical pond known as Muni Talab (pond) erected by the Private respondent no. 7 and others over the public land bearing Thana No. 319,

Khata No. 121, Plot No. 754, Area-1 Acre 36 Decimal situated at Mauza Nirakhpur, Village+post+P.S.+Block-Paliganj, District Patna.

(ii) For further directing that any construction over the Muni Talab(Pond) will permanently destroy for the ecology of pond, its ground water recharge

ability and will be violative of public trust doctrine, percautionary principal which are part of Article 21 of the constitution.

(iii) And further directing the respondents to restore the ecology of Muni Talab (Pond) in accordance with the ""polluters pay principle.

After the matter was heard for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the

respondent no. 2 District Magistrate, Patna, to consider and decide the representation with respect to grievances raised in such representation.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that if such representation is filed before the respondent no. 2 District Magistrate, Patna, same shall be

considered and decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law.

Equally liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law.

Liberty reserved to petitioner to approach the court, if the need so arises subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action.

The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

From The Blog
Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Read More