Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1588 (PAT)

Mohammad Noor Alam v. State of Bihar

2018-10-05

MADHURESH PRASAD, RAVI RANJAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ravi Ranjan, J. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Ms. Shilpa Singh, GA 12, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Through this application, the writ petitioner seeks quashing of the order, dated 18.10.2000 passed by the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah, by which he has refused to remove encroachment on the ground of existence of Jamabandi. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order, dated 4.1.2007 by which the Circle Officer has also refused to remove encroachment from Plot No. 836, measuring 43 decimal and Plot No. 837 measuring 3 decimal pertaining to Khata No. 142 of Mauja Majhaulia, Revenue Thana No. 237. 3. The writ petitioner claims that he has been given management of the property of such plots which are registered under Section 3(1)(i) read with Section 25 of the Wakf Act. The petitioner instituted Encroachment Case No. 5 of 2006-2007 before the Circle Officer, Majhaulia, West Champaran, in which the respondents appeared and claimed settlement of the land from the ex intermediary. 4. It is contended that the revenue workers submitted report showing factum of encroachment upon the land by the respondents, so did the Anchal Amin and the Circle Officer. The Circle Officer has opined that since the jamabandi is running in the name of respondents it is a matter of cancellation of jamabandi and he has refused to issue order for removal of encroachment. The said order was challenged before the Deputy Collector and the Collector. Finally the Collector, by order dated 18.10.2001 vide Annexure 6, has rejected the appeal preferred before him on the ground that the jamabandi is standing since long in the name of respondents and they are also paying land rent after creation of jamabandi, therefore it would not be possible to cancel such jamabandi after such long time. He has also referred to some judgments passed by the Civil Court in T.S. No. 45 of 1958 as well as T.S. No. 85 of 1986, in which title in favour of the respondents was declared and the survey entry that the land belongs to Kabristan was held to be wrong and directed to be corrected. He has also referred to some judgments passed by the Civil Court in T.S. No. 45 of 1958 as well as T.S. No. 85 of 1986, in which title in favour of the respondents was declared and the survey entry that the land belongs to Kabristan was held to be wrong and directed to be corrected. In such a situation he refused to pass any order for removal of encroachment holding that complicated question of title is involved which can only be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Against those orders appeals were also filed which were dismissed. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran, warranting interference. 6. As a result this writ petition is dismissed.