(1.) The petitioner claimed to be in possession of certain properties in front of and across the main eastern gate of the Patna High Court. He challenges the proceedings for his removal as an encroacher from these lands and premises. Be it noted that petitioner created several small tenantments and let them out on rent to different service providers like photo copiers, eateries etc. It appears when the writ petition was filed, petitioner claimed a small portion of plot No 392. This Court ordered that except for plot No 392, the rest of the area may be got vacated and possession resumed by the State after proper measurement. Upon proper measurement, it was found that plot No 392 lays squarely within the precincts of the High Court with which obviously the petitioner had nothing to do. The rest of the area, which were different plots, were demolished and taken possession by the State.
(2.) Petitioner's grievance initially was that the notice, as issued to him, referred to plots No 605 and 607 with which he had no concern but the premises being named, petitioner was fully aware that it was in respect of premises of which he had the possession. Thus, there was no dispute about the premises in respect of which encroachment proceedings were initiated yet the petitioner kept taking technical pleas to avoid the inevitable that is his summary eviction. Now, by an interlocutory application, petitioner has prayed for restitution of his possession having been wrongly evicted.
(3.) To the straight question put by the Court as to what was his right to occupy the premises, the pleading and the answer was that in the year, 1962, being a contractor of PWD, he was allowed to occupy that land and construct a godown for storage of Government articles used in execution of Government contract by him. He remained in possession and now by adverse possession, he has perfected his title as against the Government. Beyond this, he claims no right. It is not in dispute that the property in question is of PWD that is State Government.