IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10450 of 2010 1. DRIGONMESHWAR S/O LATE BAIDYA SITA RAM R/O VILL HARDING ROAD, (KRANTI MARG), P.S.SACHIVALAYA, P.O.G.P.O., DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA CUM DISTRICT-MAGISTRATE PATNA ----------- 5. 04.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The relief sought by the petitioner is to restrain the State respondent from making any further construction over Plot No. 1217, Khata No. 282, Tauzi No. 5308, Thana 16, Phulwari, Revenue Village- Dhirachate consequent to demolition of the Temple standing thereupon since 1911, constructed by the grandfather of the petitioner. It is his further case that his title stands perfected in Title Suit No.172 of 1997 by the Court of Sub Judge, XIII, Patna by judgment and order dated 19.1.2000. Learned counsel for the State points out that Title Suit No. 172 of 1997 was preferred against the Union of India only. He however fairly acknowledges that the present lands were subject matter of Title Suit No. 172 of 1997. The judgment of the Civil Court notices the claim for creation of municipal holding and 2 payment of rent. The defence taken was that the lands were acquired. The Court held that no documentary evidence to support the theory of the acquisition was placed to the satisfaction of the Court. The suit was therefore decreed in favour of the petitioner confirming his title and possession over the suit lands. The State Government does not stand as a private litigant and cannot urge that the decree of a Civil Court to which it may not have been a party does not bind it, unless the State Government is able to demonstrate its claim over the lands, the mode, method and manner completely distinct from that considered in Title Suit No. 172 of 1997 and which may have remained undisturbed, not having been challenged by the petitioner. More than one counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The second supplementary counter affidavit is considered helpful in the disposal of the matter and shall therefore be taken into consideration. It states that the lands in question were acquired as far back as 1913 and seeks to rely on certain contemporaneous documents annexed to the counter affidavit. Without prejudice to the same, a specific statement has been made in Paragraph-5 3 that to put an end to the entire controversy, the State is ready to examine the entire case records, hear the concerned and then take the matter to its logical conclusion. This Court considers that to be a very fair stand on the part of the respondents. The judgment in Title Suit No. 172 of 1997 notices the Union of India laid a claim to acquisition. The petitioner claimed purchase and continued possession since 1911 denying any acquisition. The respondent State in its counter affidavit takes a defence of an acquisition in 1913. The Court is satisfied that the controversy is raising issues of fact requiring examination and reconciliation of documents, consideration of the claims of the petitioner, opportunity to him to examine the land acquisition documents etc. only whereafter a final decision can be arrived at. The writ application is therefore disposed in terms of Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit for enquiry and determination in the manner discussed preferably within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Patna when due opportunity and personal and/or representative hearing shall be granted to the petitioner. 4 Needless to state that any construction made on the lands or standing upon the lands shall abide by the final decision that shall be made by the Collector. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)