- (1.) Seeking a direction upon the respondents to initiate a proceeding for removal of encroached public land by the respondent nos. 4 to 7, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The petitioner claiming ownership of an area ademeasuring 40'60' in Plot No. 3887, Khata No. 18 at Mouza Baridih vide registered saledeed dated 11.10.1984 from Ram Chandra Sharma, asserts that upon receiving information through Right to Information Act, he submitted application on which the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 10.09.2007 directed spot verification by the Special Officer, Jamshedpur. The report submitted on 26.09.2007 discloses that residential houses are situated about 4050 feet away from the gas godown. Subsequently the OffierinCharge made application for initiation of proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C against the proprietor of Laxmi Gas Agency. The petitioner again approached the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur on 16.03.2013 for demolition of the illegal construction. It is stated that another report dated 10.12.2013 was submitted by the Circle Officer to the Subdivisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshdpur still, the respondents did not take action in the matter and therefore, the petitioner approached the Sub divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur on 31.05.2014 for taking necessary action. The petitioner asserts that on 06.01.2015 the Additional CommissionercumSenior Officer, Tata Lease, Jamshedpur ordered initiation of BPLE case after making spot verification however, no action has been taken by the respondents. The petitioner again approached Officerin Charge, Sidgora Police Station as well as Special Officer, Jamshdepur Notified Area Committee on 26.05.2015 and 01.06.2015. Compelled by inaction on the part of the official respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterates the stand taken in the writ petition and submits that the report submitted by the Circle Officer unerringly disclosed that public land has been encroached by one Surendra Deogam and others however, the respondents have failed to take action for removing such encroachment. It is contended that due to encroachment on the public plot, the petitioner's egress has been closed illegally.;