IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 17292 of 2009 1. SHYAMPATI DEVI W/O LATE YADUNANDAN CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- PETHIAGACHHI, P.S.- SAMASTIPUR, WARD NO.- 23, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 2. GANESH CHOUDHARY S/O LATE YADUNANDAN CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- PETHIAGACHHI, P.S.- SAMASTIPUR, WARD NO.- 23, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 2. ANCHALA ADHIKARI, SAMASTIPUR 3. HEADMASTER, GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL PETHIAGACHHI, SAMASTIPUR *** For the petitioner : Mr V Nath, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Maruth Nath Roy, AC to SC XI For respondent No 3 : Mr D K Sinha, Sr Advocate *** 3 09.04.2010 As pleadings are complete, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Respondent No 3 is the Headmaster of Government Middle School, Pethiagachhi, district – Samastipur at whose instance and for whose school, petitioners are being disturbed and petitioners have come to this Court. Respondent No 3 has filed a detailed counter affidavit as well. The facts are not in controversy. The dispute relates to land and building standing thereon appertaining to Cadastral Survey Plot No 33 corresponding to Revisional Survey Plots No 362 and 382 at Pethiagachhi in the district of Samastipur. Petitioner alleges that they have their ancestral house over that land which has been there for several decades since vesting of zamindari. Their possession is being sought to be disturbed in the name of the Government Middle School being there and that 2 property being Government property belongs to the Government School. This is the position that is challenged. In my view, the writ petition must succeed. The simple reason for this is so far as petitioners’ right and possession are concerned, the same had been subject matter of two writ petitions before this Court being CWJCs No 1561 and 1680 of 1973. The second writ petition was filed by the husband and father respectively of the petitioners. The dispute therein was with regard to the right, title and interest of petitioners’ husband and father respectively and uncle in respect of the said property vis-à- vis the Government. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition while holding that petitioners were in possession of the property. It virtually held that they were rightfully in possession and the lands did not vest in the Government. They further held that the petitioners could not be dispossessed or their possession interfered with except in execution of a decree by competent Civil Court for their eviction. The judgment was delivered on 11.04.1974 and has attained finality as between the parties. In my view, it is now not open to the State or to respondent No 3, the Headmaster of the School to contend otherwise. On behalf of respondent No 3, it was faintly suggested that he was not a party to the writ petition and, as such, findings therein would not bind him. In my view, the contention is misconceived and noted to be rejected. Headmaster does not claim the property as his personal property. His claim is through 3 the State and if State is bound by the judgment of this Court so is the Headmaster. This is based on principles of res judicata. That being the position, this Court cannot now hear the State or respondent No 3 for that matter to contend that petitioners’ possession is not lawful or petitioners are not in possession. As noted in the judgment above, if the State so wishes, it is open for the State to move a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for getting their right declared and in execution thereof evict the petitioners but till that date, petitioners possession and right to enjoy the property cannot be interfered with and/or restricted in any manner much less the manner in which respondent No 3 intends to do. I, therefore, have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition and restraining the respondents including respondent No 3 from in any manner interfering with the right of enjoyment and possession of the petitioners over the property in dispute in any manner. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)