INDU PARBAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner, the State, the counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation and the private respondent no. 6.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order, dated 30.3.2007, passed by the District Magistrate, Siwan, communicated to the petitioners vide memo no. 320 legal, dated 13.4.2007, whereby no objection certificate has been refused to the petitioner for opening Kisan Seva Kendra. The facts admitted are that the petitioners applied in response to the advertisement of Indian Oil Corporation for establishing Kisan Seva Kendra at location village More and the petitioners were empanelled as number one candidate for this purpose. When the Indian Oil Corporation sought for no objection certificate in favour of the Kisan Seva Kendra to be run in the name of Indu Parbat (petitioner no. 1), one Rajendra Singh, respondent no. 6, filed an objection with regard to the description of the land as supplied by the petitioners. The matter was referred to the Circle Officer, Bhagwanpur, for enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted on 14.9.2005 in favour showing possession of the petitioners over the land. Thereafter, respondent no. 6 also produced another report whereby he was shown in possession. The District Magistrate, Siwan, referred the matter to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, for holding another enquiry. The Sub -Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, reported possession of the petitioners over the land. The Circle Officer also submitted that the possession certificate which was produced by respondent no. 6 was not genuine and incorrect. In spite of that the District Magistrate, Siwan, did not issue no objection certificate in favour of the petitioners. He started looking into the matter with a view to decide title and possession of the parties.

(3.) MR . Y.V. Giri, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that though it was not necessary in spite of that documents which indicated the judgment and decree of competent authority were submitted with respect to the land showing title of the petitioners and her family members. The consolidation map showing possession was produced. The consolidation map was rejected stating that the consolidation proceeding is still going on and so far the final decree and judgment of title suit is concerned it was rejected on this ground that carving out report was not produced.