Order 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the Zila Parishad, Siwan and its officials. 2. The petitioners faces a threat of demolition of portion of his house at the instance of Zila Parishad, Siwan. The house of the petitioner stands on revisional survey plot no. 1652, under Khata No. 470 and is situate at Mauza Sehauta within Mahrajganj Police Station in the district of Siwan. The functionaries of the Zila Parishad have put some red marks on portion of the house indicating that the house encroached upon land belonging to the Zila Parishad and was, therefore, required to be demolised to the extent shown in the marks. Needless to say that no notice to show cause was given to the petitioner in this regard and no proceeding under any statute was ever initiated. The only notice given to the petitioner was dated 3.8.1996 (Annexure 5) which ordered him to remove the encroachment by 15.9.1996 failing which it was stated in the notice, that demolition will be carried out forcibly. It may also be noted that even this notice gave a wrong plot number and mentioned plot no. 1660 although the house of the petitioner over which red marks are put is situate on plot no. 1652. It may be stated here that the Zila Parishad justifies its action in taking steps for demolition of the petitioner's house on the basis of directions given by a bench of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2290/90 asking the administration to remove encroachments from roads and public paths after taking measurements and even without instituting a proper proceeding under the Public Land Encroachments Act. Now it is to be seen how far the Zila Parishad and its officials can be justified in trying to take advantage of the directions given by this court in the aforesaid case. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the disputed plot being revisional survey plot no. 1652 was originally in possession of raiyat Dukhi Ram from before the previous survey of the year 1889. Dukhi Ram constructed a house over the plot of land and his name was recorded as raiyat in the previous survey khatiyan of the year 1889. In the revisional survey held in 1914 the name of Dukhi Ram was once again recorded in the record of rights. Dukhi Ram constructed a house over the plot of land and his name was recorded as raiyat in the previous survey khatiyan of the year 1889. In the revisional survey held in 1914 the name of Dukhi Ram was once again recorded in the record of rights. In support of this averment a photo-stat copy of the relevant extracts from the revisional survey record of rights has been enclosed as Annexure-1. The plot of land was then purchased from Dukhi Ram by the petitioner's uncle for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- through registered sale deed, dated 15.10.1941 and since then the petitioner's family is coming in possession over the land. A copy of the sale deed of 1941 is enclosed as Annexure-2. Also enclosed as Annexure 3 is the order dated 12.7.1996 passed by a bench of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990. This order clarifies that earlier directions given in that case and makes it plain and clear that the direction to clear obstructions and remove encroachments from public road was not intended to be used by the administration as licence to recklessly demolish houses of citizens without holding a proper enquiry. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Zila Parishad. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated : "That the aforesaid land of the then District Board was leased out in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year and after completion of the said period of one year the land automatically became in peaceful possession of the then District Board, now Zila Parishad, Siwan. Since then it was/it is in peaceful possession of the Zila Parishad, Siwan." 5. I do not even know what comments to make on this averment. No copy of the lease deed has been enclosed as annexure. Even the date or the year has not been stated when the alleged lease was made in favour of the petitioner. I may further add that the statement appears to be prima facie incorrect because in case the land were in peaceful possession of the Zila Parishad the question of removing the petitioner or demolishing portions of his house would not arise. I may further add that the statement appears to be prima facie incorrect because in case the land were in peaceful possession of the Zila Parishad the question of removing the petitioner or demolishing portions of his house would not arise. Moreover, in the revisional survey record of rights of the 1914 there is the name of Dukhi Ram entered in respect of the land and therefore it appears that if at all any lease was given, it must have been in favour of Dukhi Ram, the petitioner's vendor and not in favour of the petitioner as has been stated in the counter affidavit. 6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner, taking advantages of the lease, somehow got his name recorded in the revisional khatiyan. The counter affidavit seems to have been prepared even without looking into the contents of the writ petition because in the writ petition it was clearly averred that in the revisional survey record of rights the land was recorded not in the name of the petitioner but his vendor Dukhi Ram. 7. From a perusal of the counter affidavit, however, one thing is clear that even the Zila Parishad does not deny the fact that in the survey records the land stands in the name of the petitioner. Counsel for the Zila Parishad stated that what was meant to be said was that the name of the petitioner's vendor was recorded in the survey records. It is the stand of the Zila Parishad, however, that the entry in the survey records would not give any right, title or interest to the petitioner but the land would continue to belong to the Zila Parishad and the petitioner's possession over it must be deemed to be an encroachment. It is finally stated in para 19 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner's occupation of the land was unauthorised and it was in the nature of encroachment. Therefore, the Zila Parishad, acting on the basis of the direction given by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2290/ 1990 proposed to demolish portions of the petitioner's house and thus to get encroachment removed from over the land belonging to it. Therefore, the Zila Parishad, acting on the basis of the direction given by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2290/ 1990 proposed to demolish portions of the petitioner's house and thus to get encroachment removed from over the land belonging to it. Needless to say that no order passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990 or in any other case was brought to my notice which would even remotely justify the actions of the Zila Parishad. It seems to be classic case where one of the disputing parties claiming right over a piece of land, himself takes over the right of adjudication on the dispute as well. 8. In these pleadings it seems to me that the stand taken by the Zila Parishad is quite ridiculous. The controversy plainly involves a dispute over complicated question of title. The petitioner is admittedly in possession of the land for long years and there are revenue records and transfer deeds to substantiate his claim of title. On the other hand the claim of the Zila Parishad is based on word of mouth and not a single document has been brought on record to support its claim over the disputed plot. 9. In these circumstances, it would be the height of arbitrariness on the part of the Zila Parishad to decide for itself that the disputed plot belonged to it and it had the right to eject the petitioner by forcible demolition of his house. Any official of the Zila Parishad going over the land with such a notion would be clearly committing trespass and it would be open to the petitioner to exercise his right of private defence in accordance with law. 10. In the result, I am of the view that the action of the Zila Parishad in putting marks on portion of the petitioner's house and on that basis asking the petitioner either to 'demolish those portions of his house on his own or to face forcible demolition was wholly illegal and cannot be sustained for a moment. The respondents are accordingly restrained from carrying out their threat of demolition of portion of the petitioner's house. 11. If the Zila Parishad has any claim over the disputed plot, it will be open to it to approach a competent court of civil jurisdiction, seeking appropriate reliefs. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.