Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1426 (PAT)

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-12-10

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2013
R. K. Datta, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and for the private respondent no.5. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 22.2.1994/23.2.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, Vaishali in Misc. Case No. 1/1993-94 by which he has set aside the order passed by the respondent no.4, DCLR, Hajipur in Misc Case No. 4/1993 holding that the Executive Magistrate/Revenue authority has no power to get boundary demarcated by Government Amin and such order can only be passed by the Civil Court and his further prayer is that respondent nos. 1 to 5 may be directed to take immediate steps for measurement and demarcation of the boundary of the land of the petitioner in Khesara Nos. 269 and 270, Khata No.2 in Mohalla Bagtaz Khan @ Pokhara in the town of Hajipur. 3. The claim of the petitioner in the writ application was that the petitioner had purchased the lands of plot nos. 269 and 270, Khata No. 2, whereas the respondent no. 5 purchased the lands of Plot Nos. 271 and 272 and both of them have constructed their respective houses in their plots. The petitioner on finding that the respondent no. 5 went upon fixing pillars, raising pucca boundary wall and started digging the land of the petitioner of plot no.270, informed the police which gave a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 8.2.1993 stating that the matter could be resolved by the measurement of the lands of the petitioner by the Government Amin so as to demarcate the boundary. 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate sent the matter for disposal to the DCLR who started Misc. Case No. 4/1993 and directed the parties to appear before him. The respondent no. 5 appeared and stated inter alia that the land as mentioned in the notice was not described in detail in the notice and further that due to the nature of the dispute the lands of the persons in the vicinity were required to be measured but they had not been given notice. The DCLR on 12.4.1993 directed for measurement and demarcation of the land by the Anchal Amin which was challenged by the respondent no.5 before the Additional Collector who by his impugned order dated 22.2.1994/23.2.1994 held that since the respondent no. The DCLR on 12.4.1993 directed for measurement and demarcation of the land by the Anchal Amin which was challenged by the respondent no.5 before the Additional Collector who by his impugned order dated 22.2.1994/23.2.1994 held that since the respondent no. 5 was not prepared for measurement and demarcation hence such issues can only be gone into by the Civil Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Additional Collector stating that he has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the DCLR and only the Collector could have done so. 6. In my view, with the passage of long number of years, all those issues have become irrelevant. Under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 under Section 4(1) and (4) boundary disputes have been enumerated as one of the disputes in which the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms shall have jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate. Such decision of the competent authority is now appealable only before the Commissioner of the Division under Section 14 of the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions now available, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent authority under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act. In case any such application is filed before the competent authority then the same shall be considered and disposed of after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The earlier proceedings before the authorities are quashed so that a fresh order may be passed in the land dispute case to be filed before the competent authority by the petitioner. 9. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.