IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4721 of 2010 Deo Eshwar Prasad S/O Kedar Nonia @ Kedar Mahto R/O Vill.- Bharatpura, P.S.- Bikram, Distt.- Patna, At Present Phulwari Sharif, P.O. And P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Distt.- Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Patna 3. The S.D.O. Patna Sadar, 4. The Block Development Officer, (B.D.O.) Phulwarisharif, Patna 5. The Circle Officer, (C.O.), Phulwarisharif, Patna. 6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, District- Patna. For the petitioner : M/s. Binay Kumar Arbind Prasad Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, AAG-12 Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta, AC to AAG-12. -------------------- 5. 28.9.2011. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to encroach over his 1 katha land bearing plot no.345 of Khata No.804, Tauzi No.5190, Thana no.35 sitauted at Mauza Phulwari Sharif in the town and district of Patna. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question belonged to the family of one Mithu Nonia who expired leaving behind his son Manik Chand Nona, who also expired leaving behind 2 his two sons Deo Baran Nonia and Kedar Nonia alias Kedar Mahto. The petitioner is the son of Kedar Nonia and claims title and possession over the subject matter in question. The petitioner, even while accepting that an acquisition had taken place in the year 1955- 56 for creation of Phulwari Sharif Block by the Govt. of Bihar, giving rise to Land Acquisition Proceeding no.9 of 1955-56, submits that his plot no.345 did not form area of acquisition and stood exempted from acquisition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon a map issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna placed at Annexure-2. The map appended at Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit showing the area of acquisition by marking of red ink, also includes the plot of the petitioner bearing Plot No.345 but learned counsel submits that by mistake, the said portion has been colored and that in the original map so supplied by the District Land Acquisition Officer, the plot nos.345 and 347 have not been shown as area acquired in the said acquisition proceeding. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, it is submitted that where as the documents of the 3 respondents itself manifest that plot nos.345 and 347 in question were never acquired in the land acquisition proceeding arising from PLA Case No.9 of 1955-56 and thus any attempt on the part of the respondent authorities of the district of Patna to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question would be illegal and would amount to interference with the property of the petitioner without authority of law. The position is contested by Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned Additional Advocate General-12 appearing for the State. It is contended that the plot no.345 is a big plot measuring about 4 acres and of which the petitioner is only claiming 1 katha thereof. Learned counsel, while agreeing that initially the said plot no.345 did not form a part of the acquired area, submits that by a subsequent corrigendum, the said plot nos.345 and 347 were also included within the area of acquisition. Learned counsel for the State in support of his contention has relied upon a map placed at Annexure-A, a Draft Erratum dated 9.8.1955 and the certificate of procession of land dated 21.2.1956 which forms part of Annexure-A of the counter affidavit. He thus submits that the entire area of 4 4 acres having been taken over under the acquisition in question, it does not stand to reason that 1 katha land of plot no.345 was not acquired. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the materials on record of the proceedings, it is apparent that the writ petition lacks substance and does not deserve indulgence. The petitioner has tried to raise a Stale issue after an indefensible lapse of more than 55 years. Even while the documents on record manifests that plot no.345 admeasuring 4 acres was acquired, the petitioner maintains that his one katha of the said plot did not form part of acquisition proceedings. The contention being misconceived, meritless and grossly belated is rejected and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)