JANKI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ applications filed by the petitioners were directed to be heard along with Second Appeal No.247 of 2000 because by terms of order dated 20.01.2005 while disposing of I.A. No.5496 of 2004, this Court directed the Collector of the District to ensure no portion either constructed portion or vacant is let out or settle in favour of a private person or any agency other than the Bihar Government and in case it is noticed that any encroacher has come upon the land than the Collector of the District shall ensure their removal by force and pursuant to that order, notices have been issued to all the petitioners for removal of their encroachment. All the petitioners in the writ applications have prayed for quashing the notice issued by the S.D.O. for removal of the encroachment.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ applications submitted that the property which they have purchased by different sale deeds are not the suit property involved in the Second Appeal. Therefore, the Collector had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to remove their construction because the petitions are not the encroacher but are the real owner of the property.

(3.) IN C.W.J.C. No.12793 of 2006, the petitioners claimed that she purchased the property by two registered sale deed in the year 1988 and 1992 and likewise all the petitioners of the other writ applications claimed to have purchased the lands from different persons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are not party in the Second Appeal. Therefore, without hearing the petitioners, the order could not have been passed in Second Appeal affecting the right title, interest and possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the S.D.O. or the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue notice to the petitioners because they are the rightful owners and not encroacher and moreover the High Court directed the removal of encroachment of the suit land giving rise to Second Appeals whereas all the property purchased by the petitioners in these 10 writ applications are not the suit property because the plot number and khata number is different.