IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16183 of 2001 PARAS MANI RAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10 18/4/2009 Heard the parties. In this writ application the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “That this application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents restraining them from making any encroachment/construction of Community Hall (Samudaik Bhawan) or any other building over the petitioner’s land appertaining to Khata No. 110, Plot No. 488 situated in village Chharidaha P.S. Vijaipur in the District of Gopalganj and the petitioner also prays for directing the Respondents to pay a compensation at the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- Three Lakhs to the petitioner for the illegal and unlawful mental agony and damages caused by them. That the petitioner further prays for the issusance of any other writ/order/direction to which he may be found entitle to.” Subsequently, an interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner being I.A. No. 2676 of 2003 on 3rd July, 2003, wherein the petitioner had made a prayer for restoration of his possession over the land in question. This Court on 6.3.2002 had already passed an order for maintaining the status-quo and subsequently by order dated 22.5.2006 had expressed its tentative view that this writ application in view of pendency of title suit being Title Suit No. 231 of 1999 is not maintainable, in as much as, the petitioner could not have elected the two remedies for the same cause of 2 action. Thereafter, the matter has been only adjourned from day to day. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the D.C.L.R. Gopalganj, wherein it has been mentioned that the land in question had been recorded as “Gairmajarua Malik” in the revisional survey khatian and had not been settled to the petitioner. The counter affidavit also gives details as to how the State is owner of the land upon vesting of Zamindari and also relies on certain reports of the revenue authorities. The details of paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit, therefore, is the defence of the State for taking step for construction and completion of the Community Hall allegedly on the land of the petitioner and the same needs to be extracted hereinbelow:- “That prayer made in the writ petition to restrain the respondents from making any encroachment/construction of Community Hal or any building over the petitioner’s land bearing Khata no. 110, Plot no. 488 situated at village Chharidhaha under Bijaipur P.S. and District Gopalganj and the reasons formulated thereof being wholly misconceived as fit to be rejected as the land in question has been recorded the Gairmazarua Malik in Revisional Suvey Khatiyan and has never been settled to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have patta from Ex-landlord Hatua Raj since 11.3.1935. The petitioner further stated that he made an application to the Circle Officer, Bijaipur, for creating the Jamabandi of the aforesaid land for which he had received patta in the year 1935, but Hatua Raj by mistake could not file the return for the aforesaid land. As it appears from the perusal of the records in the office of Circle Officer that the petitioner made an application for creating Jamabandi of the aforesaid land in the year 1986-87 which contains order sheet, inspection report, application and notice. The 3 application made by the petitioner for the creation of Jamabandi is undated and does not contain patta as enclosure which is the sine/qua/non and basis of settlement. The petitioner also does not indicate the description and the side from which he was settled 42 decimal out of 6 decimals. The inspection report made by the Halka Karamchari is also undated. The Inspection report further shows that the petitioner has shown the rent received issued by the Karamchari which is also not on record. The Jamabandi record also does not mention Khatiani report of the land which is the basis of creating the Jamabandi. It also appears from the perusal of the notice, which was issued for creating the Jamabandi that it was not properly served as it does not bear the certificate on the back of the notice by which it can be ascertained that the notice was properly served. The order contained in the order sheet does not also give any description that which part of 0.42 decimal from plot no. 488, area 67 decimal has been settled. The order sheet also does not mention that an enquiry before the creation of Jamabandi had either been made by the Circle Inspector or by the Circle Officer, Bijaipur. It is submitted that from the aforesaid fact it appears that the petitioner has got the Jamabandi created without producing the document of settlement and later filed title suit vide T.S.No. 231 of 1999 and Misc. Case No. 10 of 1999 which is still pending before the Lower Court.” In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit it would appear that the lis was between the petitioner and the State but the petitioner has choosen to file suit only against the private person and therefore today when rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner enclosing judgment and decree of the civil court in Title Suit No. 231 of 1999 that definitely will not bind the State because the State was not made party to the suit. This Court, therefore, would find that the step taken by 4 the State for construction of Community Hall or its completion was well within the competence and the jurisdiction of the State Government and its authorities. That being so, this Court would now leave the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observation. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)