Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JYOTI SARAN, J.
Sri Kamta Sakhi Math and Mahabir Asthan at Mahabir Asthan & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through Collector, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2051 of 2014
Decided On : 19-02-2015
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwvedi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-6
The central legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of the disputed land as public land and the rejection of the petitioners' claims for title and possession by way of adverse possession.
Headnote:
Encroachment - Land Dispute - Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 - Section 107, Section 144, Section 3 - The court discussed the encroachment proceedings initiated under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and the subsequent legal actions taken by the petitioners. The court highlighted the previous orders and judgments related to the encroachment proceedings, the nature of the disputed land as public land, and the rejection of the petitioners' claims for title and possession by way of adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief from the court to quash an order and notice related to land encroachment proceedings. The petitioners claimed ownership of a Math established over a plot of land and were involved in multiple legal actions and proceedings regarding the alleged encroachment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputed land was public land, and the petitioners' claims for title and possession by way of adverse possession were rejected by the trial court and the appellate court. The court concluded that the order and notice related to the encroachment proceedings did not suffer from any infirmity and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership and possession of the disputed land, the legality of the encroachment proceedings, and the rejection of the petitioners' claims for title and possession by way of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the previous orders and judgments related to the encroachment proceedings, which confirmed the nature of the disputed land as public land and rejected the petitioners' claims for title and possession by way of adverse possession.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims.
The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.1.2014 passed by Collector, Patna in Land Encroachment Appeal No.3 of 1998-99 by which he has allowed the Encroachment Appeal as filed by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 20.1.2014 issued under the signature of Circle Officer, Sadar Patna (Respondent no.4) by which he has directed the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment from the disputed land within twenty four hours.
(iii) Respondent no.4 may be commanded to remove its illegal construction made on the lands of petitioner as described in paragraph no.4 of this petition without any further delay and not to make any further encroachment over any part of the land.
(iv) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents to not disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners till final disposal of the instant writ application.
(v) For any other writ/writs, order/orders for which petitioner deemed entitled too.
2. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned senior counsel standing for the petitioners has submitted that whereas the petitioner no.1 is a Math of “Sakhi Sampraday”, the petitioner no.2 is its Mahanth. He submits that the Math was established more than 100 years back over plot nos.1127 and 1129 admeasuring 0.171 acres which is equivalent to 5 kathas 14 dhurs and 9 dhurki situated east of Gandhi Maidan at Mahabir Asthan, Main Road under the Gandhi Maidan Police Station in the Town and District of Patna. He submits that out of total area of 0.171 acres, a temple of Lord Hanuman is built on plot no.1129 over an area of 0.008 acres and the remaining area of 0.163 acres is occupied by the Math which is spread over Municipal Plot no.1127 which is adjacent to Municipal Plot no.1129. He submits that a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against the Math in 1964 bearing Case No.572 of 1964 but was dropped by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna vide order passed on 8.1.1965 placed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Case No.110 (M) of 1978 was initiated which again drew in favour of the petitioners on 21.3.1978 vide order placed at Annexure-4. It is the case of the petitioners that in addition thereto a Land Encroachment Case No.84 of 1976-77 was also initiated against the petitioner and notice was issued, a copy of which is placed at Annexures 21 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 21.11.2014 charging the petitioner with encroachment over plot nos.1127 to the extent of 300 Sq.ft, which is equivalent to about 5 dhurs. He submits that the matter travelled up to the High Court and vide judgment and order passed on 4.7.1979 in CWJC No.2396 of 1977 the matter was remitted to the appellate authority under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for consideration of the appeal afresh and for its disposal in accordance with law. It is stated that the appeal of the petitioners was again dismissed and which was questioned in CWJC No.2324 of 1985 and the Division Bench upon consideration of the matter allowed the writ petition to the extent that the charge of encroachment was confined to the area mentioned in the notice and not in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. It is submitted by Mr. Dwivedi that in between the petitioner had filed a title suit for declaration of title by way of adverse possession bearing Title Suit No.28 of 1988 and by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench in CWJC No.2324 of 1985 the plaint was amended and the area was modified accordingly as is manifest from the amended paragraph 12A of the plaint, a copy of which is present at Annexure-23. It is
