IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12371 of 2002 SAHDEO RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 18.2.2010 The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents restraining them from interfering with the lands of the petitioner and his family members in connection with removal of encroachment over which they have valid title and possession which has been confirmed by the Civil Court. The details of plot decreed by the Civil Court in Title Suit No.365 of 1999 is narrated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition and the judgment and decree dated 10.5.2000 passed by the Sub Judge I, Vaishali at Hajipur is contained in Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal was filed by the Bihar Bhudan Yagya Samiti bearing Title Appeal No.44 of 2000 before the learned District Judge, Vaishali which got dismissed on 194.2003 on the ground of limitation. There cannot be any dispute that no encroachment proceeding can be initiated against such land which has been decreed in a civil suit in favour of the parties concerned unless the judgment and decree is subsequently modified or altered. It appears that this court in the case of Dighi Gram Vikash Samiti Vs State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2001(1) PLJR 663 observed that if the respondents have or are making encroachments over the plot which was given under the Bihar Bhudan Yagna Act, 1954, the same have to be 2 KHAN removed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though he was respondent in the writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of without notice to him. The order of the Division Bench will have a binding effect. It would be open for the petitioner to show before the authorities that he is not an encroacher and the land in question has been decreed in his favour in Title Suit No.365 of 1999, contained in Annexure-1. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)