IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18347 of 2008 Akhil Bhartiya Paryavaran Avam Gramin Vikash Sansthan, through its Honrary Secretary Geeta Devi W/O Rajendra Ram, resident of Mohalla-Gardanibagh, Hospital Campus, P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Patna. 2. The Collector, Patna. 3. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna. 4. The Senior S.P., Patna. 5. The Officer-Incharge-Shastrinagar Police Station, Patna. 6. Syed Asgar Ali, son of late Nawabzada Syed Md. Mehdi, resident of Guzri, Patna City, P.S. Khazakalan, town and district-Patna ------- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 12. 16.11.2011 Heard Mr. Chandrashekhar for the petitioner, Mr. Gyan Shanker, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.6 for respondent nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. Sanjeet Kumar for respondent no.6. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the two sets of respondents, particularly respondent nos. 1 to 5, that it may be permitted to repair the boundary wall on the land in question, and for the further relief of making Pucca construction to prevent encroachment in future. It appears that respondent no.6 alienated land measuring 16 kathas and 4 dhurs, being portion of a bigger area bearing plot no. 526, in favour of the petitioner by 2 eight registered deeds of absolute sale of 8.1.1989 and 12.9.1994, with which right, title, interest and possession of the same passed on to the petitioner. In view of certain problems in enjoyment of peaceful possession of the lands so purchased, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition for a direction, particularly to respondent nos. 1 to 5, not to interfere with enjoyment of peaceful possession of the land in question. By order dated 18.12.2008, it was directed that “…Taking into account the materials on record, the petitioner is permitted to reconstruct and/or repair the boundary wall they have put up enclosing the land in question…”. It further appears from the order dated 13.2.2009 that a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent no.6 about the extent of the petitioner’s possession over the land. The claim of respondent no.6 was that the petitioner has occupied more than 16 kathas and 4 dhurs of land, whereas the petitioner’s stand was that they are in possession of lesser area and claimed full area purchased by them. Consequently, by order dated 13.2.2009, measurement and local inspection was ordered for. It further appears from the order dated 27.10.2010 that the petitioner sought permission to make pucca 3 construction on the land in question where free education would be imparted to scavengers and their children, and to whom books, uniforms, and mid-day meals would be provided free of charges. The main purpose is to bring children of the lower and the neglected part of the society to the mainstream of society. The respondents did not file counter affidavit(s) to the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. The operative portion of the order dated 27.10.2010 is reproduced hereinbelow: “ We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner is pursuing a very noble cause to advance the cause of the down-trodden and to bring them to the mainstream of society. Secondly, the petitioner seems to have acquired the right, title and interest of the land(s) in question by registered deeds of absolute sale from respondent no.6. In that view of the matter, permission is granted to the petitioner to raise construction as per its volition on the land(s) in question, and in accordance with law.” This Court had also noted in the order the undertaking given by the petitioner that it is prepared to hand over vacant possession of the property, if permitted to be constructed, subject to orders of this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 4 that in view of the permission granted by this Court, the petitioner has secured the land by putting up or repairing the boundary wall, and making a pucca construction thereupon. The writ petition may, therefore, be disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 submits that respondent no.6 had instituted Title Suit No. 153 of 1981, for declaration of right, title and interest with respect to the entire plot no. 526, measuring 6 Bighas and more, where the State of Bihar is a defendant, though the petitioner was not a party defendant. By judgment dated 29.6.2009, the suit has been dismissed, giving rise to F.A. No. 47 of 2010, in this Court at the instance of respondent no.6 herein (the plaintiff). He further submits that the petitioner has also instituted F.A. No. 58 of 2010 in this Court which is directed against the judgment in Title Suit No.153 of 1981, and by order dated 23.8.2011 leave has been granted to pursue this appeal. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner has right, title, interest, and possession of the land in question by 5 registered deeds of absolute sale. They are, therefore, asserting right, title, interest, and possession with respect to 16 kathas and 4 dhurs of land in a situation where the petitioner is not a party to the suit. Therefore, the present writ petition was maintainable at the time of institution of the same in this Court because there was interference with its peaceful possession of the property. In so far as Pendente Lite development is concerned, the parties shall now fight out their rights and liabilities in the two appeals pending in this Court. To this is added the petitioner’s undertaking to this Court incorporated in the order dated 27.10.2010 that the petitioner shall hand over vacant possession of the property as and when called upon by the Court. 5. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of with the permission to retain possession of the lands in question which shall be subject to final adjudication of right, title, and interest. The petitioner shall be bound by its undertaking recorded in the order dated 27.10.2010. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) 6