Judgment 1. The petitioner established a Gumti (kiosk) on a piece of land being part of a large plot belonging to the Bettiah estate. He set up the Gumti after the piece of land was given to him on the basis of an agreement duly executed on behalf of the Bettiah estate. It is alleged that he was forcibly removed from there by respon dent no. 5 (who is an Inspector of Police and at the material time was posted as the Officer Incharge of Bettiah Town police station) acting in collusion with and at the instance of respondent no. 9 (a private individual). The petitioner failed to get any help from the district administration and was, therefore, forced to come to this court in this writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that earlier the petitioner, along with several others, had set up a Gumti in Bettiah town over a public drain by the side of a municipal road. In that Gumti, he carried on a Kirana shop, that being his only source of livelihood. In 1993 the district administration launched a beautification drive for Bettiah town in course of which all the Gumti holders at that place including the petitioner, were directed to remove their Gumties set up over public drain. The Gumti holders thus being displaced then approached respondent no. 7 (the Manager, Bettiah Estate) for their rehabilitation on plot no. 5227 which is a large plot lying on the other side of the public drain. The Manager, Bettiah Estate agreed to let out pieces of land measuring 12 x 8 for constructing shops to each of the 39 Gumti holders who were being displaced by the district administration. In this regard, he also asked for the approval of respondent no. 10, the Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bihar being the competent authority for Bettiah Estate court of wards. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 10 accorded his approval on certain terms and conditions, by letter, dated 6.11.1993 (Annexure-1). In terms of the rehabilitation scheme evolved by the Bettiah Estate and in pursuance of the approval accorded by respondent no. 10, a written agreement was drawn up between the parties which was executed by the Manager, Bettiah Estate on 30.9.1993 and by the allottees (the displaced Gumti holders) on 10.11.1993 after the respondent no. 10 had accorded his approval. In terms of the rehabilitation scheme evolved by the Bettiah Estate and in pursuance of the approval accorded by respondent no. 10, a written agreement was drawn up between the parties which was executed by the Manager, Bettiah Estate on 30.9.1993 and by the allottees (the displaced Gumti holders) on 10.11.1993 after the respondent no. 10 had accorded his approval. As provided by the agreement each of the 39 Gumti holders including the petitioner was allotted a piece of land at a rental of Rs. 100.00 per month. 3. At this stage, it will be appropriate to note the description of the price of land allotted to the petitioner which forms the subject matter of dispute in this case. In para 4 of the writ petition, it is stated : "That the dispute in this case relates to a piece of land with a dimension of 12 x 8 situate in the northern portion of plot no. 5227, in Mohalla Ganj No. 2, Bettiah district West Champaran which contains the shop of the petitioner in a wooden Gumti set up by him." It is further stated (in para 5) that plot no. 5227 belongs to Bettiah Estate. It is a very big plot containing several houses which have been let out to different persons under the management of respondent no. 7. One of the houses over plot no. 5227 was occupied by respondent no. 9 at all material times. 4. Later on it appears that a triangular dispute arose between the petitioner and some of the other allottees, the officials of the Bettiah Estate and respondent no. 9. While the officials of the Bettiah Estate were trying to evict both the allottees and respondent no. 9 through lawful means, respondent no. 9 allegedly got the petitioner thrown out forcibly and unlawfuly with the help and assistance of respondent no. 5. 5. It is stated in the writ petition that though in the begining respondent no. 7 accepted the monthly rental from the allottees, after a while he refused to accept rent and thereafter the petitioner and the other allottees started sending the monthly rent by money order. 6. It is further stated in the writ petition that respondent no. 5. 5. It is stated in the writ petition that though in the begining respondent no. 7 accepted the monthly rental from the allottees, after a while he refused to accept rent and thereafter the petitioner and the other allottees started sending the monthly rent by money order. 6. It is further stated in the writ petition that respondent no. 9 stopped payment of rent for the house in his occupation and consequently the then Manager, Bettiah Estate filed T.S. No. 78 of 1980 in the court of Munsif, Bettiah for his eviction and for realisation of the arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 29.8.1981. In the execution of the decree a writ for delivery of possession was issued on 27.7.1993 but it could not be effected due to the influences wielded by respondent no. 9. It is further alleged that respondent no. 9 had an eye over the entire plot no. 5227 and he was scheming to grab it. He made a representation, alleging that a number of Gumti holders had forcibly encroached upon the land of the Bettiah Estate which was settled in his favour and made a request for the removal of the allottees. The Collector got an enquiry made on the representation filed by respondent no. 9 and the Sub-divisional Officer, Bettiah in his enquiry report submitted on 27.7.94 clearly stated that the Gumties of the 39 shop keepers on the northern part of plot no. 5227 were set up under valid orders of lease. It was further stated in the report that those shops could not be removed by force and advised the Collector to recall his order for the removal of the shops. 7. According to the statement made in the writ petition a letter then came from respondent no. 10 on the basis of which respondent no. 7 stopped accepting rent from the allottees and steps were also taken for the removal of the shops from the plot in question. 8. At this stage, the petitioner along with others came to this court in CWJC No. 3417/1996 seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from demolishing their shops forcibly and from evicting them without following a legal procedure. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.6.1996 (Annexure 7) with the following observations : "In my view the apprehension of the petitioners is wholly unjustified. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.6.1996 (Annexure 7) with the following observations : "In my view the apprehension of the petitioners is wholly unjustified. It is clearly mentioned in the aforesaid order contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition that the Subdivisional Magistrate will take steps according to law. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to apprehend that he will forcibly remove their Gumties without following the procedure prescribed in law." 9. After the order passed by this court, a proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act was initiated which was numbered as Land Encroachment Case No. 3 of 1996. In that proceeding notices were issued to the petitioner and four other allottees. They filed their show cause and produced the relevant materials in support of their claim on the basis of which the Subdivisional Officer, Bettiah found and held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the Bettiah Estate and the Gumti holders and no proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act was, therefore, maintainable. He accordingly dropped the proceeding by order dated 30.1.1997 (Annexure 8). 10. It is further alleged in the writ petition that in the meanwhile respondent no. 9 had been giving threats of all kinds to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed an application, dated 1.4.1997 before respondent no. 2, the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah who called for a report from the Subdivisional Officer in that matter. The Subdivisional Officer assigned the enquiry to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, respondent no. 8 who sat over the matter and never submitted any report. It is further stated that on 12.4.1997, respondent no. 9 came to the petitioners shop along with respondent no. 5, two Sub Inspectors and about two dozens police personnel. They started ransacking the shop. The petitioner being a poor shop keeper fled away and remained a mute spectator of the demolition of his shop from some distance. Acording to his case all the articles of the shop along with the Gumti and some broken planks were removed by respondents 5 and 9, loaded on a truck and taken away to the police station. The structure of the Gumti, according to the petitioner, still lay at the police station. He was able to take one or two photographs copies of which are enclosed as Annexure 9. 11. The structure of the Gumti, according to the petitioner, still lay at the police station. He was able to take one or two photographs copies of which are enclosed as Annexure 9. 11. The petitioner thereafter filed representation and complaints before the Collector in which enquiries were made and it was found that the petitioners allegations were quite true but no action was taken by the Collector to restore his possession over the disputed piece of land despite repeated representations and reminders submitted before him. 12. The petitioner also filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah which was registered as Complaint Case No. 206(c)1997. 13. With these allegations, he has come to this Court seeking restoration of possession of the disputed piece of land and damages for the destruction of his shop by respondents 5 and 9. 14. Separate counter affidavits are filed in this case on behalf of the different sets of respondents. Respondent no. 1 (the State), respondent no. 2 (the Collector, West Champaran), respondent no. 3 (the Subdivisional Officer, Bettiah) and respondents no. 4 and 8 (the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bettiah) have jointly filed an affidavit. In this affidavit though expressly submitting the existence of the Gumti over the land of the Bettiah Estate (para 9) they deny any knowledge about practically all the allegations made by the petitioner. It is, however, stated that respondent no. 8 had neither initiated nor ordered nor executed the order of any authority nor did he have any information regarding demolition of the petitioners shop. 15. Another affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 6 and 10 (Secretary, Board of Revenue, being the competent authority for the Bettiah Estate). In this affidavit it is specifically admitted (para 7) that in the year, 1993, the petitioner along with others was given a piece of land measuring 12 x 8, situate in the northern portion of plot no. 5227 on ground rent of Rs. 100-00 per month by letter no. 3721, dated 6.11.1993. It is further stated in this affidavit that the petitioner had constructed his Gumti by breaking the boundary wall of plot no. 5227 and the Manager, Bettiah Estate was, therefore, directed to stop receiving rent from him. 5227 on ground rent of Rs. 100-00 per month by letter no. 3721, dated 6.11.1993. It is further stated in this affidavit that the petitioner had constructed his Gumti by breaking the boundary wall of plot no. 5227 and the Manager, Bettiah Estate was, therefore, directed to stop receiving rent from him. It is further stated that pursuant to the direction given by this court by order dated 27.7.1996 in CWJC No. 3417 of 1996, the Manager, Bettiah Estate was instructed to act according to the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act for getting the petitioner evicted from the plot. 16. Another counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent no. 7 (the Manager, Bettiah Estate). In para 4 of the affidavit it is stated as follows : "That indeed the petitioners had been inducted as month to month tenant by the then Manager of Bettiah Estate Shri Satyadeo Prasad. The tenancy had also been operated by executing a letter of agreement and by delivery of possession of the land let out to them. However, the tenancy was not approved by the Board of Revenue vide letter no. 1613(3), dated 9.11.1995 and so the status of the petitioners remained as encroachers. But no step for eviction of the petitioners from the said land or removal of the Gumti therefrom has been taken up by respondent no. 7. Neither the respondent no. 7 had or has ever requested the police for removal/demolition of the Gumti or eviction of the petitioners from the land or the Gumti nor it has any information of the same." 17. From the three counter affidavits filed on behalf of the district administration and the officials of the Bettiah Estate two undeniable facts that clearly emerges are (i) that the petitioner was in settled possession of the disputed land for about 3 1/2 years having come over that piece of land on the basis of an agreement duly executed on behalf of the Bettiah Estate, the owner of the land and (ii) that he was never removed from that piece of land on the basis of any procedure known to law. 18. Respondent no. 9 against whom there is the main allegation in the writ petition has filed his counter affidavit separately. In this affidavit a number of counter allegations are made against the petitioner. 18. Respondent no. 9 against whom there is the main allegation in the writ petition has filed his counter affidavit separately. In this affidavit a number of counter allegations are made against the petitioner. But leaving aside the unnecessary and irrelevant details the stand of respondent no. 9 is that the Gumti set up by the petitioner on plot no. 5227 on the basis of the agreement with the Bettiah Estate remains completely undisturbed and continues to be in existence. However, in addition to the Gumti the petitioner was trying to set up another Gumti on a point that would completely block the passage to the house occupied by respondent no. 9 and it was the second Gumti which was removed by the indignant Mohalla people. It is repeatedly stated in the counter affidavit of respondent no. 9 that the original Gumti of the petitioner was still in existence over plot np. 5227 (see paragraphs 4, 7 and 12 of his counter affidavit). 19. Respondent no. 5 (the Officer In-charge) has also filed a highly evasive affidavit. He denies the allegations made against him and mostly questions the maintainability of the writ petition. It is further stated that a complaint case was also filed against him and, therefore, he would disclose his defence, if any, before the criminal court and not in this case. 20. From the foregoing it is evident that the setting up of the Gumti by the petitioner and its existence over a portion of plot no. 5227 is admitted on all sides. According to the petitioner his Gumti was forcibly demolished and removed from the disputed piece of land by respondents 5 and 9. According to respondent no. 9, the petitioners Gumti set up on the disputed land remains undisturbed and it was the additional Gumti that he was trying to set up which was removed by the Mohalla people which of the two stand is correct can be easily verified by a simple inspection. 21. At this stage, it may be stated that in case of dispossession of an individual by another private person a writ court may not feel inclined to intervene and may leave the aggrieved party to seek his relief before the civil court. In this case, however, I fee! the need for interference for two reasons; one is the alleged involvement of respondent no. In this case, however, I fee! the need for interference for two reasons; one is the alleged involvement of respondent no. 5, the Officer Incharge, Bettiah town police station. Of late cases are coming to the notice of this court where police officials, taking undue advantage of their position forcibly and unauthorisedly evicted citizens from buildings/lands under their occupation and hence I feel reluctant in rejecting the allegations made by the petitioner out of hand. Secondly, the manner in which complete ignorance is feigned about the entire occurrence in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the district administration does not inspire confidence. For these reasons this court feels inclined to entertain this writ petition and to intervene in this matter. 22. As noted above, on the basis of the pleadings made on behalf of the parties, it is only to be verified whether or not the Gumti set up by the petitioner still stands on the disputed land as described hereinabove. The Collector, West Champaran is accordingly directed to ask the Subdivisional Officer, Bettiah to personally go on the spot and to verify whether or not the Gumti set up by the petitioner in the year, 1993 exists on plot no. 5227. In case it is reported by the Subdivisional Officer that the Gumti was still there, that would be the end of the matter. In case, however, the Subdivisional Officer reports that the Gumti was not there, the Collector would be duty bound to recover the Gumti from respondent no. 9 and 5 and to have it set up at its original place within one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In that case the Collector may also consider reporting the conduct of respondent no. 5 to the superior police officials for suitable action in accordance with the rules. 23. This writ petition, thus, stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions but with no order as to costs.