RAJ KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Awadhesh Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Zila Parishad, Nalanda and its functionaries. However, no one appears on behalf of State of Bihar and its functionaries.

(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the validity and legality of the order dated 25.8.1993(Annexure-5), passed in Encroachment Case no. 14 of 1991 (Zila Parishad, Nalanda Vs. Raj Kishore Singh) by respondent District Collector, Nalanda, in exercise of his powers under Section 11 of THE Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short ,,Act), whereby the aforesaid appeal filed on behalf of the respondent Zila Parishad was allowed and the order dated 10.9.1992 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent DCLR in Encroachment Case No. 1 of 1990-91 has been set aside. THE petitioner has been directed to remove his encroachment made on the land bearing Plot No. 140, appertaining to Khata No. 171, Situate at Mauja Rupaspur, District Nalanda, (referred to as the land in question) within a period of 15 days. THE short facts relevant for disposal of the present proceeding are enumerated as follows:

(3.) AFTER having heard the parties at length, this Court finds that as a matter of fact, the encroachment proceeding was started with respect to plot no.140 situate at village Rupaspur and the petitioner has not been able to show/prove his right and title over the land in question. On perusal of Annexures-1 and 2, this Court further finds that there is no materials to show that Sarju Singh, uncle of the petitioner, was settled any portion of land of plot no.140. On the basis of order dated 24.5.1946 (Annexure-1) an agreement was required to be signed by the parites for settlement of the land in question. The petitioner has not produced any such agreement either before the original authority or before the appellate authority or before this Court. The agreement could have shown the identity of the land and the period for which settlement was made in favour of aforesaid Sarju Singh. In absence of such an agreement, it is difficult to hold that Sarju Singh, uncle of the petitioner, was ever settled any portion of plot no.140. The petitioner has also not brought on record any document to show that settlement even on the basis of annexure-1, was for perpetuity.