IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8754 of 2011 SURENDRA KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . with CWJC No.7300 of 2011 SURENDRA KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitoners:- Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Bardhav, Adv Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samrendra, Adv. For Respondent No. 8:- Mr. Dronacharya, Adv. Mr. Vibhati Ranjan Samredra, Adv. -------------- 2. 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also private respondent no. 8 in C.W.J.C. No. 8754 of 2011. C.W.J.C. No. 7300 of 2011 was filed by the same petitioner seeking a direction not to initiate any proceeding against him for encroachment. The proceedings have continued and a final order has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hilsa at Nalanda in Land Dispute Resolution Regulation Case No. 59 of 2010-11. C.W.J.C. No. 7300 of 2010 therefore becomes infructuous and is disposed off accordingly. The petitioner came to this Court apprehensive of dispossession by demolition of his 2 residential house standing on Chak Plot No. 1410/1948 stating that it was his raiyati land. The contention that allegations of encroachment against him had been enquired more than once and that the present controversy was again emanating notwithstanding the same in pursuance of an application by respondent no. 8 before the Janta Darbar of the Chief Minister are issues which needs not be gone into in view of the final order dated 13.5.2011 of the Deputy Land Reforms, Hilsa. The conclusion in no uncertain terms states that the residential house of the petitioner has existed on the premises for the last 30 to 31 years and there does not appear to have been any changes on the spot from that mentioned in the Khatiyan. The river, pond, drain and pyne were free in accordance with the Chak manual. There was no difference in the boundaries prior to consolidation and thereafter. That assuages the fears of the petitioner completely. What measurement is to be made thereafter and what shall be its consequences etc. or whether the impugned order dated 13.5.2011 was without jurisdiction are premature issue at this stage. Presently as matters stand, the question of 3 any demolition being effected in light of the findings recorded in the order dated 13.5.2011 does not arise. Who may challenge that order, what circumstances may exist for the challenge and when it may be ripe are all speculations which need not be gone into at this stage. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid findings and observations. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)