DEVENDRA PRASAD NAYAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application challenges the orders passed in a proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act directing the Eviction of the petitioner from the disputed land. The order of eviction was passed by the Original Authority, the Circle Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Rosera on 4.10.1976 (Copy at Annexure-2) in Encroachment Case No. 15/23 of 75-76. The petitioner's appeal against this order was rejected by order dated 15.6.1982 passed by the Collector, Samastipur (Copy at Annexure-4). A further appeal by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division was rejected as not maintainable by order dated 7.1.1991 passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division (Copy at Annexure-5).

(2.) The subject matter of the proceeding has been described in detail in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The disputed land measures 6 kathas 1/2 dhurs, equivalent to about 26 decimals, and is part of a bigger plot bearing No. 1187 within Ward No. 3, now Ward No. 6 of Rosera Municipality, District Samastipur. According to the writ petition 2 1/2 decimals out of the disputed land towards its extreme east constitute the flank and the road side ditch by the said of the Darbhanga-Rosera road. It is also stated in the writ petition that the residential house and some shops are constructed over the disputed land.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the disputed land was not a public land from the inception. According to the petitioner Plot No. 1187 originally belonged to one Jagdeo Sah and Basudeo Sah who were its absolute owners. On 26.11.1957 the father of the petitioners purchased the disputed land from the aforesaid owners under a registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner who at that time was a minor. On the same date another piece of land measuring to an area of 3 kathas, 9 dhurs and 11 dhurkis was also purchased from the same plot in the name of the petitioner. Following the purchase the two pieces of land which were contiguous with each other were amalgamated. The lands were duly mutated in the Government records in the name of the petitioner who claims to have rent receipts issued by the State of Bihar upto the year 1987. As noted, a residential house and shops were constructed over the land and the petitioner is said to be paying rent to the Municipality as well.