IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11984 of 2001 1. (a) Sri Bhagawan Singh, (b) Ganesh Singh (c) Sri Niwas Singh, (d) Rajendra Pd. Singh (e) Lal Bihari singh Son of Late Dhan Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Tenduni (Bikramganj) P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. 3. Shri Lakshmi Prasad Chauhan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum- Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Bikramganj. 4. Shri Anirudh Prasad, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bikramganj, district- Rohtas. 5. Dr. Shashi Bhusan Prasad Singh, Father’s name not known to the petitioner, At, P.O. and P.S.-Bikramganj District- Rohtas. 6. Raghuni Singh, son of Late Bhikhari Singh. 7. Trioki Singh, son of Late Matuki Singh Both resident of village Tenduni, P.O. & P.S. Bikramganj District- Rohtas. . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. Kamal Narayan Choubey, Sr. Advocate For the Res. Nos.5 to 7: Mr. Dhrub Narain, Sr. Advocate, For the Res. Nos.2 to 4: Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate For the Res. No.1 : Mrs. Binita Singh, AC to AAG III ----------- 8/ 20.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as respondents. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceeding in Case no. 3/89-99 including the order dated 31.08.2001 passed by the Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Bikramganj and for issuance of an appropriate writ interdicting the respondents and their subordinates, agents and associates interfering with the exclusive right, title and possession of the petitioners over the land in question fortified by the Civil Court’s decree. The petitioners state that the land in question was a Gairmazarua Maalik of late Maharaja Darbhanga. According to the - 2 - petitioners, their ancestors purchased the aforesaid land from the settlee of Late Dumraon Raj. The purchased land refers to plot no. 2618, khata no. 836 measuring 16 decimals. However, in the revisional survey, the land in question along with some other land was recorded as Anavad Bihar Sarkar, as such cloud was cast on petitioner’s possession and title. The petitioners’ father filed Title Suit no. 439 of 1989 in the Court of Munsif, Bikramganj at Sasaram in which the State of Bihar, Anchal Adhikari and private respondent were parties. The title suit was decreed on 17.07.1996, a copy of the judgment and the decree thereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 and 1/A. Learned Munsif, Bikramganj on adjudication of the issues declared the title and confirmed the possession of the petitioners over the land and also passed restrictive decree restraining any one from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The petitioners state that a demarcation proceeding was also drawn in respect of the land and the Anchal Adhikari observed in the aforesaid proceeding that some persons raised issue of the passage. However, the Circle Officer negatived the issue by stating that no passage has been provided in the judgment and decree contained in Annexure-1. Again the issue of passage was raised in the year, 1996 by one Raghuni Singh, respondent no.6. The learned Executive Magistrate, Bikramganj in the case bearing no. 1057 M of 1996, after hearing the parties and on consideration of materials including the judgment in the title suit negatived the claim of Raghuni Singh by order dated 20.06.2000, as contained in Annexure-2. Thereafter a petition was filed - 3 - by respondent no.5, Dr. Shashi Bhusan Prasad Singh and others before the Municipal Commissioner, Notified Area Committee, Bikramganj, bearing Misc. Case no. 3/98-99. Learned Chairman, Notified Area Committee, by the impugned order issued direction to demolish a portion of the house of the petitioners and to allow passage to the applicants. He observed that the construction is an encroachment. Counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned order of the Chairman, Notified Area Committee is without sanction of law and in the teeth of judgment of the Civil Court in T.S. No. 439 of 1989. The petitioners state that the main objector Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh has subsequently sold 04 decimals of land in favour of petitioners’ father by a registered sale deed, a copy of the sale deed has also been annexed as Annexure-8 to this application. Mr. Dhruv Narayan, learned Senior Counsel representing the private respondents as well as counsel for the Notified Area Committee opposed the writ application. It is stated that the order is appeallable under Section 373 of Municipal Act. He submits that any person aggrieved by any prohibition, noting or order made by Commissioners under Sections 161, 169, 173(3), 181, 191, 196(1), 197, 236, 252, 265 and 276(2) of the Municipal Act, 1922, may within 30 days file an appeal before the Commissioners, which would be decided by at least three commissioners. Learned counsel also made reference to Section 196 of the Municipal Act, 1922 stating that they can pass any appropriate order bringing down a construction, if raised against the provisions of the Act. He submits that earlier the area came under - 4 - notified area committee, but now it is under the Municipality. On 06.11.2001 while issuing notice, this Court stayed the operation of impugned order dated 31.08.2001, passed in Case no. 3/98- 99. As the case has remained pending before this Court for 8 years. I do not find it appropriate to ask the petitioners to go in an appeal. Further more, Civil Court has passed a decree declaring the petitioners title and possession over the land in question. It has also restrained others from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-petitioners. The powers exercised by Municipal Commissioners / authorities at the most are quasi Judicial in nature. As such, in exercise of their power under the Act they cannot over ride or bye pass a judgment / decree passed by a Civil Court. A judgment and a decree of a competent Civil Court can only be modified / altered or nullified in an appeal by the superior Courts or in a subsequent suit by a person, who was not party in the suit. The Municipal Act does not confer power on Municipal authorities to pass an order which will have the effect of over reaching the judgment and decree of Civil Court. The writ petition, thus, succeeds and the impugned order dated 31.08.2001 passed by Chairman Notified Area Committee including case no. 3/98-99 is hereby quashed. The respondents may seek their remedy by way of suit. This writ application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)