BALESHWARTIWARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present matter relates to the dispute in regard to fixation of boundary in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioners under the Act the village Monijor remained in Bihar, whereas the village Hasnagar remained in Uttar Pradesh. Yet part of village Manijor, namely Manijor, Pachchim Diara and Danijor Kobra tolar are being treated as part of Rasnagar. On the other hand, it appears that according to some of the villagers of the aforesaid three tolas, they were not part of the Manijor village, rather it always remained part of village Manager, which, according to the schedule attached to the Act is in Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) It appears that since long this dispute is being seriously raised by the parties and the villagers of the said three tolas, but the same has not been resolved till date. In the year 1970 a map was also prepared in regard to the said areas. There being conflict between the map and the schedule of the Act, the petitioners and earlier come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1624 of 1981, in which, during the course of its bearing this Court was informed that in regard to the said conflict the State of Uttar pradesh and the State of Bihar had deputed their officers to resolve the dispute and the matter was under serious consideration. In view of the said stand, when the Court found that efforts were being made between the two Governments to reconcile the discrepancies, their Lordships declined to express any opinion at that stage. The Court, however, while disposing of the said writ-petition on 28.2.83 observed that the two States along with the Government of India should sort out this matter and final decision should be taken in that connection and the petitioners were also given liberty to file representations before the authorities, who were examining the dispute. The authorities were directed to consider the representations before taking any final decision.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India which does not indicate as to what sections were taken since after the passing of the aforesaid order by this Court. However, in the said counter-affidavit it is admitted that there has been ocassional conflicting claims between the private parties in respect of right of ownership and cultivation of land following the enforcement of the said Act and that the issue is individual and bilateral one and has to be resolved through mutual discussions between the two States.