SANWARMAL AGRAWALLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 3, Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Dhanbad in BPLE Case No. 244/1991 -92 and also the order dated 27.12.1999 passed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in BPLE Appeal No. 1/98. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notice dated 5.5.2000 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been asked/ directed to remove the encroachment from plot Nos. 1139 and 1058 under Khata No. 10 of Mouja, Jealgroa, Dhanbad. Copies of the orders dated 13.1.1998 and 27.12.1999 have been annexed as Annexures 6, and 8 to the writ application.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3, the LRDC, Dhanbad initiated a proceeding under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (shortly BPLE Act) against the petitioner for removal of encroachment from plot Nos. 1139 and 1058 of khata No. 10 of Mouja, Jealgora, District Dhanbad. The petitioner appeared and filed show cause claiming right, title, interest and possession over the said land. The LRDC, Dhanbad after hearing the parties, passed final order on 13.1.1998 directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment from the said land. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Dhanbad being BPLE appeal No. 1/98. The appeal was finally heard and dismissed on 27.12.1999, These two orders have been impugned in this writ application.

(3.) BEFORE appreciating the submissions of Mr. Sinha I would like to go through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Krishna Rao, (supra). In the case before the Supreme Court the land admittedly belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claimed to have purchased it. The question which fell for consideration was whether title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and that whether Nawab Habibuddin encroached upon the property and thereafter perfected his title by adverse possession. Their lordships held that such a question cannot be decided in a summary proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act. Their lordships observed as follows : - -