NIRANJAN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner of C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) is the mother of the petitioner of C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R). In C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976(R), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexures 1, 6, 7 and 8. Annexure 1 is a notice dated 8-3-1975 from the Anchal Adhikari, Potka, District Singhbhum (Respondent No. 2) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he has constructed a house on Government land, bearing plot No. 158 of village Bara Bhuwri by encroaching upon the said land to the extent of 5 decimals. Plot No. 158 is stated to be a road. The notice was issued under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Annexure 6 is an order of Respondent No. 2 calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment. It appears that after the order as contained in Annexure 6 was passed, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge of Singhbhum at Chaibassa (Respondent No. 3) which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1975. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 19-3-1976. Annexure 7 is a copy of that order. Annexure 8 is the final notice after the dismissal of the appeal by Respondent No. 3 to remove the encroachment.

(2.) The petitioner in C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) has prayed for quashing of Annexures 1 and 2 to that writ application. Annexure 1 of C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) is Annexure 6 of C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R). Annexure 2 of C. W. J.C. 193 of 1976 (R) is Annexure 7 of C. W. J C. 192 of 1976 (R). The grounds taken for quashing these two annexures in this case are that the petitioner of this case was not a party to the proceeding, though she is a co-sharer in the house and resides in the house, a portion of which has to be removed.

(3.) In C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R) the grounds taken and which have been urged are that there were two reports of the Karamchari obtained at the instance of Respondent No. 2. According to the first report, there was an encroachment of only one link and according to the second report the encroachment was to the extent of 4 links. It has been submitted that it cannot be ascertained by accurate measurement whether there is any encroachment or not if it is less than 5 links. In that view of the matter, there should have been no order for removal of the encroachment. The second ground which has been urged is that the petitioner in his show cause claimed that the house was built and was continuing in the same position for more than 50 years before the notice (Annexure 1) was issued and in that view of the matter, the petitioner has acquired a right on the land, even if there was any encroachment, by adverse possession and, therefore, there should have been no order for removal of the encroachment.