Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The present matter relates to the dispute in regard to fixation of boundary in accordance with the provisions of the bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of boundaries) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the petitioners under the Act the village Monijor remained in Bihar, whereas the village Hasnagar remained in Uttar Pradesh. Yet part of village manijor, namely Manijor, Pachchim diara and Danijor Kobra tolar are being treated as part of Rasnagar. On the other hand, it appears that according to some of the villagers of the aforesaid three tolas, they were not part of the Manijor village, rather it always remained part of village manager, which, according to the schedule attached to the Act is in uttar Pradesh. 2. It appears that since long this dispute is being seriously raised by the parties and the villagers of the said three tolas, but the same has not been resolved till date. In the year 1970 a map was also prepared in regard to the said areas. There being conflict between the map and the schedule of the act, the petitioners and earlier come to this Court in C. W. J. C. No.1624 of 1981, in which, during the course of its bearing this Court was informed that in regard to the said conflict the State of Uttar pradesh and the State of bihar had deputed their officers to resolve the dispute and the matter was under serious consideration. In view of the said stand, when the Court found that efforts were being made between the two Governments to reconcile the discrepancies, their Lordships declined to express any opinion at that stage. The Court, however, while disposing of the said writ-petition on 28.2.83 observed that the two States along with the Government of India should sort out this matter and final decision should be taken in that connection and the petitioners were also given liberty to file representations before the authorities, who were examining the dispute. The authorities were directed to consider the representations before taking any final decision. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India which does not indicate as to what sections were taken since after the passing of the aforesaid order by this Court. The authorities were directed to consider the representations before taking any final decision. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India which does not indicate as to what sections were taken since after the passing of the aforesaid order by this Court. However, in the said counter-affidavit it is admitted that there has been ocassional conflicting claims between the private parties in respect of right of ownership and cultivation of land following the enforcement of the said Act and that the issue is individual and bilateral one and has to be resolved through mutual discussions between the two States. 4. A supplementary counter-affidavit and second supplementary affidavit have been filed on behalf of the uttar Pradesh Government, to which various decisions taken in the meetings of the officer of the Central Government and the two State Governments have been annexed. It appears that some efforts have been made from time to time to resolve the dispute, but the fact remains that the dispute has not yet been finally resolved and the boundary in respect of the two villages have not yet been demarcated. Further, it appears that the matter, on several occasions were also taken to Allahabad high Court, which declined to interfere with the disputed question of fact. 5. I am unable to appreciate as to why the authorities of the two States have taken so much time to resolve the dispute when there should not be any difficult in view of the explanatory note of the schedule of the Act. Under the said Note the village boundaries and names mentioned in the schedule have the reference to boundaries and names as shown in the Sheets of large scale surveys concerning the area in question conducted by the Survey of india during the period 1881-83. Thus, the boundaries of the disputed villages can be ascertained with reference to eastern boundary of the existing village adjacent to the villages in question in uttar Pradesh and with reference to eastern boundary of the existing village adjacent to the village in question in bihar. 6. Thus, the boundaries of the disputed villages can be ascertained with reference to eastern boundary of the existing village adjacent to the villages in question in uttar Pradesh and with reference to eastern boundary of the existing village adjacent to the village in question in bihar. 6. However, as the authorities of the two States so far have failed to resolve the dispute, in my opinion, the remedy to resolve the dispute lies in sub-section (f) of Section (3) of the act which provides that the fixed boundary in relation to such of the rivers Ganga and Ghaghra shall be demarcated by an authority appointed in the behalf by the Central Government so as to be generally in conformity with the boundary line described in the schedule in relation to that river. Under the proviso to the said provision the said authority, in the process of such demarcation is vested with the power to rationalise to the extent considered necessary by him, the boundary alignment between the High banks of river Ganga or the river ghaghra, as the case may be, in particular shall try (a) to secure as far as possible the stability of the boundary pillars and the recognition of the boundary alignment both during the dry and flood seasons and (b) to avoid, as far as possible, the splitting up of the existing abadis. Under clause (a) of sub-sectipn (2) of Sec.3 of the Act the decision of the said authority is to be final. In order to determine the location of the point, at which the boundary pillars shall be constructed, the authority has been vested with the power to adopt the procedures laid therein. 7. Thus, it appears that the scheme of the Act is to get too dispute in regard to fixation of boundary resolved by as independent authority, i. e. other than the authority under the control of the two State Governments. From what has been produced in various affidavits, I find that uptill now the efforts have only been made by the officers of the two States and not by the authority appointed by the Central government under sub-section (2) of sec.3 of the Act. It is really unfortunate that though the dispute has now been coming for quite fast time, but more has bothered to adopt the procedure laid down in the Act itself to resolve such a dispute; 8. It is really unfortunate that though the dispute has now been coming for quite fast time, but more has bothered to adopt the procedure laid down in the Act itself to resolve such a dispute; 8. Accordingly, I am constrained to observe that the respondents and is particular the Central Government have completely failed in its duty to resolve the dispute regarding fixation of boundary in so far as the aforementioned villages are concerned. The writ application is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the Central government in the department of home Affairs to take steps to appoint an authority under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act at the earliest and in any case within a month of the receipt of a copy of this order to resolve the dispute, whereafter the authority, so appointed shall immediately proceed with the matter and resolve the dispute within six months, as has also been suggested by the learned Counsel for the parties in accordance with law. As rightly suggested by the parties the Central Government should appoint the authority independent and free from the control of any of the two State Governments. 9. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Decided accordingly