ORAL JUDGMENT

26-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation and learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

What is not in dispute rather is admitted by the petitioner and the private respondent is that the boundary wall, which has been constructed by the petitioner is on her own land.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in the present case relates to a piece of land pertaining to Plot No.1151, Khata No.62, Area 04 Kattha situated at Ward No.33 under the Patna Municipal Corporation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the private respondent are own sister and brother. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that out of 04 katthas of land, 02 kattha of land belonged to the petitioner and rest 02 kattha belonged to the private respondent. It is next submitted that both the petitioner and the private respondent got their respective map sanctioned for constructing the house vide Sanction Plan Case No.363/72 and Sanction Plan Case No.387/83 respectively.

It is next submitted that the petitioner in pursuance of Sanction Plan Case No.363/72 got her house constructed on the plot, which was in her share i.e. 02 katthas. It is further submitted that the private respondent, despite having a sanctioned plan, did not get his house constructed on the rest of the 02 katthas of the land.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the house of the petitioner was constructed in its entirety in the Year 1974 in consonance with the Sanction Plan Case No.363/72.

The learned counsel next submits that the petitioner has two brothers, namely, Yogendra Prasad Yadav (Respondent No.2) and Rajendra Prasad Yadav. It is next submitted that Rajendra Prasad Yadav relinquished his share in 02 kattha of land in favour of his brother Yogendra Prasad Yadav by a deed of Ladavi (deed of relinquishment) dated

13.02.1978.

The learned counsel next submits that the petitioner in the Year 1974 had already constructed her house as recorded herein above on her portion of the land ad-measuring 02 kattha. It is further submitted that since respondent no.2 was a government servant and his brother Rajendra Prasad Yadav had already relinquished his share in the land in his favour, as such, the respondent no.2 in the Year 1995, considering the economic condition of the petitioner gifted his share of 02 katthas of land in her favour by a gift deed dated 15.10.1995 (Annexure-4, reply to the counter-afÏdavit).

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that from the facts stated herein above, it becomes clear that the parents of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 had purchased 04 katthas of land pertaining to Khata no.62, out of which 02 katthas of land was purchased in name of the petitioner and rest 02 katthas were purchased in the name of the brothers by two separate sale deeds.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that since one of the sale deeds also contained the name of Rajendra Prasad Yadav, as such, he relinquished his share in favour of the respondent no.2, as aforesaid. The learned counsel next submits that in pursuance of the gift deed executed by respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for mutation of the plot in question by filing Mutation Case No.343/2/2014-15 before the Circle OfÏcer, Patna Sadar.

It is submitted that notices were issued upon the respondent no.2, but for reasons best known, he chose not to appear and thereafter, the Circle OfÏcer, Patna Sadar by order dated 06.05.2014, mutated the name of the petitioner on the land, which was gifted to her by respondent no.2 after recording that earlier the Jamabandi was in name of Yogendra Prasad Yadav.

The learned counsel at the cost of repetition submits that the construction of the house along with the boundary constructed by the petitioner was on her share of