The judgment establishes that to claim adverse possession, the claimant must demonstrate uninterrupted peaceful continuous possession and provide evidence of open, hostile, and adverse possession to the rightful owner for the statutory period.

1. In this Writ Petition, a challenge has been thrown to the order dated 30th June, 2004 passed by the Collector, Patna in L.E. Appeal No. 4 of 2002-2003 whereby the order dated 19th February, 2003 passed by the Circle Officer in Encroachment Case No. 8/2002-2003 was confirmed.

2. There is no dispute that the structure which had been directed to be removed is situate on the Khas Mahal land of the Government of Bihar. It is the case of the petitioner that the grandfather of the petitioner, after purchase of a piece of land, applied to the Patna Administration Committee for granting permission to construct house and after grant of permission initiated house construction in 1946. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in front of the land so purchased, a piece of vacant Khas Mahal land bearing Survey Plots No. 115, 156, 157 & 158, Khata Nos. 126 & 868, Thana No. 6 in the same Mauza was available. It is also the case of the petitioner that on an area of 2.5 Kathas of the said piece of vacant Khas Mahal land, the grand father of the petitioner constructed a few pucca rooms and used them as Godown. It is stated that on 3rd December, 1963, Patna Municipal Corporation granted permission to construct pucca structure on the said land. The petitioner has relied upon the permission that was so granted. The permission appears to have been granted by the Assistant Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation whereas in terms of Section 233 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951, only the Chief Executive Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation could grant permission to erect or re-erect. Apart from that, the petitioner has relied upon a letter issued by the Executive Officer, Patna, Water Board granting approval of the plan for house connection. The permission speaks of new domestic connection whereas admittedly the structures were godowns. That apart while the plan for such domestic connection was approved, the letter of approval did not indicate the premises. The petitioner is also relying on documents pertaining to deposit of municipal rates and taxes. These documents do not specify the premises for which such rates and taxes had been deposited. In one of those receipts, the Circle and Mohalla is one and in another the Circle and Mohalla is other. It was the case of the petitioner before the authorities concerned that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question since more than 30 years, and as such has perfected his right, title, interest and possession by adverse possession under Article 111 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . This has not been accepted and accordingly the same is being reagitated in the instant writ petition. The case of possession is founded on the construction of the structure.

3. On record, there is no evidence that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question for more than 30 years before the date of commencement of the encroachment proceedings, except the permission granted by the Patna Municipal Corporation, as mentioned above. Apart from the fact that the said permission is an invalid permission granted by a person not competent to grant the same, but even assuming that the said permission is acceptable as a valid permission, that only permitted construction but cannot be treated to be an evidence of construction. Then again what was permitted to be constructed has not been recorded in the permissio and the approved plan has not been produced. It is any bodys guess as to when such construction was made on the basis of the said permission granted on 3rd December, 1963.

4. As aforesaid, approval of the plan for water connection talks about a domestic connection and not of a commercial connection, which can be had for godowns. The said approval does not refer to any particular premises. The said document, therefore, is no evidence that as on the date of grant of the said approval i.e. 21st December, 1963, the structure was in existence.

The rates and taxes said to have been d