Case Background
The matter arose from a dispute between a private landholder in Munger and the local Municipal Corporation over alleged encroachment on Corporation land.
The Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Munger issued a notice dated 25.06.2020 to the petitioner. In this notice, the petitioner was directed to remove what the Corporation described as encroachment from land belonging to the Nagar Nigam, Munger.
The notice stated that if the encroachment was not removed, action would be taken against the petitioner under Sections 435 and 436 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. The land in question was described in the notice as Survey Ward No. E, Sheet No. 07, Khesra No. 1214, admeasuring 540 square feet.
According to the notice, this measurement had been carried out by an Amin (a measuring officer) of the Corporation on the basis of a complaint made by one Madan Mohan Yadav.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ application before the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8189 of 2020, seeking quashing of the notice dated 25.06.2020.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad, heard the matter. The oral judgment was delivered on 08.12.2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh.
The central complaint of the petitioner was that the municipal authorities had acted behind his back. His senior counsel argued that before issuing such a serious notice, which could lead to demolition or removal of his alleged encroachment, the Corporation should have given him an opportunity to be heard.
The petitioner’s counsel highlighted two key points. First, the measurement of the land was done without informing him and without his presence. Second, even before issuing the notice, no hearing, show-cause, or opportunity was provided to him to explain his stand or produce documents. On these grounds, it was argued that the notice violated the basic principles of natural justice and could not be sustained.
The principles of natural justice, in simple terms, require that no person should be condemned or affected by a serious order without being given a fair chance to present his side. Here, the allegation was that the Corporation had already measured the land and treated it as its own, and straightaway directed the petitioner to remove encroachment, all without hearing him.
On the other hand, the Corporation, represented by its senior counsel, defended the notice. The Corporation’s stand was that it had found encroachment over land belonging to it and therefore asked the petitioner to remove it.
The Corporation also raised a technical objection. It contended that the writ application was premature and should not be entertained by the High Court because an alternative remedy was available under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. According to the Corporation, the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal constituted under the Act, instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Thus, two broad points came before the Court: whether the Corporation had followed fair procedure by giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and whether the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
The High Court closely examined the impugned notice dated 25.06.2020, brought on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. From the notice itself, the Court found that the measurement of the land had been carried out by the Corporation’s Amin on the complaint of a private individual. There was nothing in the notice to show that the petitioner was present or was given a chance to participate in that measurement process.
The Court then looked into the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation. Significantly, in the counter affidavit, it was admitted that the petitioner had not been given any opportunity of hearing before issuing the notice. This admission was important because it confirmed that, even according to the Corporation, the petitioner had not been heard at all before the coercive notice was served.
On this basis, the Court concluded that the impugned notice was clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. It emphasized that when a person is accused of encroaching upon municipal land and is threatened with action under provisions like Sections 435 and 436 of the Bihar Municipal Act, the authority must afford a fair hearing.
Because the basic requirement of opportunity of hearing was missing, the Court held that the notice itself could not stand. The Court therefore interfered with the notice and quashed it. The writ application was allowed.
However, the Court did not stop at simply setting aside the notice. It also recognised the interest of the Municipal Corporation in protecting its land from encroachment. Therefore, it gave liberty to the Corporation to proceed afresh in a lawful manner.
The Court specifically directed that the Corporation would be free to get the land in question re-measured in the presence of the petitioner. After such joint measurement, the Corporation could proceed further in accordance with law, depending on what was found on the ground.
During the hearing, the Corporation’s senior counsel expressed an apprehension that the petitioner might not cooperate with the joint measurement. The Court addressed this concern by fixing a clear date and time.
It directed that the land be measured in the presence of the petitioner on 21st December, 2021 at 11:00 A.M. The Court further clarified that if the petitioner did not participate in the process of measurement on that date and time, the Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.
In effect, the Court balanced both sides. It protected the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing and due process by quashing the previous notice, but it also ensured that the Corporation was not helpless if the petitioner failed to cooperate. The direction fixing a specific date and time for measurement made it clear that the petitioner must take part in the process, failing which the Corporation could act on its own as per the law.
The judgment, therefore, sends a clear message. Municipal authorities cannot bypass basic fair procedure when dealing with alleged encroachment, especially when serious action like demolition or removal is involved. At the same time, once proper opportunity is given and due process followed, the authorities are free to act against encroachment in accordance with the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for ordinary citizens who receive demolition or encroachment notices from municipal bodies. It underlines that a notice affecting someone’s property or construction cannot be issued behind their back without a fair chance to be heard.
For residents of Bihar, especially those in urban areas under Municipal Corporations and Nagar Nigams, the judgment shows that the Patna High Court will insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice, even where the law provides for harsh powers to remove encroachments.
At the same time, it does not give blanket protection to anyone who has actually encroached on public land. The Court has allowed the Corporation to re-measure the land in the presence of the petitioner and then act as per law. So, if the encroachment is proved after a fair process, the Corporation can proceed.
For municipal authorities, the judgment is a reminder to follow proper procedure: give notice, allow participation in measurement, and provide an opportunity to explain before invoking penal provisions like Sections 435 and 436 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a Municipal Corporation issue an encroachment removal notice, based on measurement done behind the landowner’s back, without giving any opportunity of hearing?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that such a notice violates principles of natural justice and must be quashed. The authority must allow measurement and proceedings in the presence of the person affected and then proceed in accordance with law. - Issue: Should the High Court refuse to entertain the writ petition because of availability of an alternative remedy before the Tribunal under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007?
Answer: The Court did not dismiss the writ as premature. Instead, it exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the notice on the ground of violation of natural justice, while still allowing the Corporation to proceed afresh as per law.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment text provided does not record any prior case law cited or relied upon by the Court.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8189 of 2020
Case Title: Suresh Chandra Yadav v. Nagar Nigam Munger & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 128
Advocates: For the petitioner – Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent-Corporation – Mr. Anjani Kumar, Senior Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, Advocate.
Nature of the case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging an encroachment removal notice issued under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
Link to judgment: Patna High Court judgment link
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
