Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1253 (PAT)

District Board, Bettiah v. State Of Bihar

2003-12-03

NAGENDRA RAI, R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment 1. This appeal is barred by limitation. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.9.2002 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Case No. 12-ENCR/1997-98 has been dismissed on the ground that the matter is pending before the civil court. 4. It appears from the record that the proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act was initiated against respondent no. 7 and the Collector by order dated 29.3.1997 passed in Encroachment Case No. R.M. 51 of 1996-97, as contained in Annexure-4 ordered for removal of encroachment against which the respondent no. 7 filed appeal under the provisions of Land Encroachment Act before the Commissioner which has been allowed. It appears that in the meantime, respondents no. 8 and 9, sons of respondent no. 7 filed Title Suit No. 87 of 1997 for declaration of title over the land in dispute and for grant of permanent injunction against the respondents-State and in that case order of injunction has been granted against the State of Bihar. According to the plaintiffs, structures over part of the disputed land were removed by the State Officials. Thereafter, the court below passed order of injunction in mandatory form for restoration of status quo. Copies of both the orders have been annexed as Annexures-15 and 16. 5. The case of the appellant-Board is that the land belonged to it and as such it is public land and the encroachments were removed and as the appellant was not made party in the civil suit, it had no knowledge of grant of injunction. It is further stated that a petition for addition of party has already been filed before the court below but that has not been disposed of as yet. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records we are of the view that as the matter is pending before the civil court, entire matter is to be thrashed out on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records we are of the view that as the matter is pending before the civil court, entire matter is to be thrashed out on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The land is claimed by the District Board and as such it is a necessary party and to shorten the litigation the trial court should consider the application for addition of the appellant as party in the suit so that the matter is completely and effectually decided without depriving the appellant to go into another round of litigation. 7. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to consider the application of the appellant for addition of party within a period of 15 days from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. It will also be open to the appellant to file a petition before the court below to reconsider the injunction orders dated 21.5.1998 and 5.1.1999 in case the application for addition of party is allowed. It will also be open to the appellant, to file a petition for keeping the orders of injunction in abeyance till the disposal of the application for addition of party. 8. In the result, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the observations made above.