Choudhary S. N. Mishra, J.

1. Learned Counsel seeks permission to delete the name of petitioner No.2 Sajjal Prasad on of, Krishna Madhav prasad. He is permitted to do so. Accordingly, this writ application i. e. confined only on behalf of petitioner No.1 sanjeev prasad, son of Nirmal Lal prasad.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Stale respondent.

3. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent authorities not to demolish the part of the house of the petitioner Sanjeev Prasad aforesaid. It is submitted that the petitioner has not encroached any authorities. According to the learned Counsel there has been two survey in the town of Kishanganj in the year 1920 and in the year 1986. According to the learned Counsel, the later survey is to prevail. In. support of his contention learn Counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of Sk. Banka V/s. Sk. Bartul, reported in AIR 1952 Patna 157. The submission of the learned Counsel same to be prima facie correct. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the respondent District Magistrate, Kishanganj, within two weeks, who will