IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3008 of 2003 AMARNATH SINGH sonof late Lal Bihari Dusadh, resident of Mohalla Dujra, P.O and P.S. Budha Colony,District-Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Patna Regional Development Authority,Patna 3TheVice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority,Patna 4. Director, Patna Regional Development Authority,Patna 5. Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 6. Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 7. Circle Officer, Patna. 8. The Collector, Patna. 9. The Land Acquisition Officer,Patna. ----------- 15 22.5.09 Petitioner professes to be in possession and the owner of inter alia plot nos. 915,917,918,919 and 920 in Dujra, Revenue Thana no.4, Thana Phulwari , Pargana-Azimabad District-Patna. Petitioner claims the aforesaid lands. This is opposed by the Bihar State Housing Board, who submit that those lands were acquired in a duly constituted land acquisition proceeding way back in the year 1956. In support thereof, a counter affidavit has been filed annexing the notification for acquisition dated 18th June, 1956 along with a plan showing acquired area with the boundary . It is apparent that the notification gives the plot number on each of its boundary. In the South boundary it is clearly stated that boundary is with plot nos. 46,44,43 and 42. Thus all lands north of these plots are the subject matter of acquisition. If one refers to the map it would be clear that plot no. 919 is adjacent north to plot nos. 43 and 44, plot no. 918 is adjacent north to plot nos. 44 and 46, plot nos. 917 and 915 are north of plot no. 918. Plot no. 920 is also north of plot no. 919, which itself is within the - 2 - acquired area. In the acquisition notice as well it is written that the plan of acquired land is also available. Thus seen, it is clear and undisputed that the plots, in question, are within the boundary notified for acquisition. It is well settled that if any property is described with boundary and a plan thereof is also there showing the boundary then all lands contained in the boundary became subject matter of the transaction. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s land did not fall within the acquisition aforesaid. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition then submits that the petitioner has made an enquiry with regard to the award and compensation. No compensation has been paid to Khatiyanti raiyat nor award has been prepared in their name at any point of time. He submits that thus the acquisition. proceeding as against the petitioner are thus not valid. In my view, challenging an acquisition , which took place 40 years back (in 1956), cannot be permitted at this late stage in this writ jurisdiction. The Writ Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction in the matter after such a long delay . Thus, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner may however resort to any other appropriate remedy to which he may be advised and entitled to in law. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)