UMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Intervenor.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the peoperty in question, identified as holding no. 337 (A), 51 (new), khesra no. 356 and 576 in ward no. 20 (new), tauzi no. 92 C and 268 B situated in Mohalla - Bengali Tola, Samastipur, measuring 1 katha 3 1/2 dhurs (out of a total area of 2 kathas 3 1/2 dhurs) by a registered sale deed dated 3.12.1985 from the vendor Smt. Swarna Kaur, who in turn purchased the same from one of the co -owners who acquired title on partition. A part of the vended lands were occupied by a tenant for which an eviction suit was instituted by the vendor of the petitioner and which came to be decreed and executed in Execution Case No. 21 of 1977. when possession was handed over to the petitioner on 14.12.2001 by the Nazir presently at Annexure -2. The area and description of the lands which came to be handed over to the petitioner in pursuance of the execution of the decree are mentioned in detail in Annexure -2. The boundaries of the entire vended lands are also described in the title deed. The petitioner applied for mutation and then applied for permission to construct a commercial -cum -residential building, which has been sanctioned by the competent authority on 29.3.2003. Her grievance is that when she commenced the construction, certain antisocial elements started creating hindrance by preventing the labourers to work upon the site. About hundred people collected near the construction site and attempted to physically prevent the construction. Having petitioned the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, no action was taken by the concerned authorities compelling her to approach this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel on behalf of the Intervenor submitted that the Intervenor is also a purchaser of an area of 1 katha 3 1/2 dhurs of lands of the same plot from the total area of 2 kathas 7 112 dhurs from another co -owner under a deed dated 9.9.2002. The plot numbers 356 and 576 measured a total of 2 kathas and seven dhurs. Learned counsel for the Intervenors further sought to persuade this Court that in Execution case No. 21 of 1977 when delivery of possession was effected on 14.12.2001, the entire area which was the subject matter of the eviction suit was, in fact, not handed over to the petitioner and a part of the decreed area continued to remain in possession of one Amresh Kumar, son of the erstwhile ousted tenant. The petitioner, in fact, seeks to encroach upon the lands of the intsrvenors to compensate with respect to the area still in illegal occupation of Amresh Kumar. The petitioner by this subterfuge seeks to encroach upon the lands of the Intervenor.