IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.5122 of 2010 Nirmal Kumar Jain S/O Late Devi Prasad Jain R/O M.P.Dwivedi Road, P.O.City Post -Office, P.S.Tatarpur, Distt-Bhagalpur Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Post Master General, Bihar 2. The Superintendent Of Post-Offices, Bhagalpur 3. The Post Master, City Post-Office,Bhagalpur 4. The Secretary To The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Commissioner, Bhagalpur 5. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhagalpur 7. The Circle Officer, Jagdishpur Anchal, Bhagalpur 8. Rajkumar Khemka S/O Sajjan Kumar Khemka R/O Naya Bazar, P.O.City Post Office, P.S.Tatarpur, Distt-Bhagalpur 9. Rashmi Khemka W/O Sri Rajkumar Khemka R/O Naya Bazar, P.O.City,Post Office, P.S.Tatarpur, Distt-Bhagalpur. ----------------- For the petitioner : Mr.Avinash Kumar, Advocate For Union of India : Mr.Sahvind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Tejendra Sinha, AC to G.P.20. -------- 3. 05.8.2011. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This writ petition questions the validity of the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur respondent no.6 in Case No.2 of 2005/06, whereby it has been held that there was no encroachment by the authorities of the Postal Department over the plots in question. The order is placed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition. The petitioner is also aggrieved by 2 the order dated 1.12.2007 passed in Encroachment Appeal No.85 of 2007-08 by the Collector, Bhagalpur, whereby the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the respondent no.6 was affirmed. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent nos.1 to 3, i.e. the authorities of the Postal department have encroached upon the land bearing Holding No.26 and 30, Municipal Survey Plot Nos.99,112,113 and 114 measuring about 60 kathas forming a pathway infront of the northern portion of the plot of the petitioner. After series of litigations between the parties, the matter came before this court in C.W.J.C.No.4519 of 2005 (Nirmal Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India & ors) raising similar issues. A bench of this court, vide order dated 9.8.2005, placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition, disposed of the same with the following direction: “If by paying market value, a land has been acquired by the Union of India for the purpose of its Postal Department it is entitled to use every inch of such land for the purpose for which it has been acquired. In the event the public pathway is 4-5 feet in width then compelling the Postal Department to sacrifice another 5-6 feet in order to make that public pathway 10 feet in width would tantamount to wastage of public money 3 which has been spent for the purpose of acquiring the land for the Postal Department, and accordingly although it would be proper on the part of the Postal Department not to expand itself beyond where it is now but at the same time it would be appropriate to direct the Sub Divisional Officer to forthwith but not later than 12 weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him to decide finally what was the original width of the public pathway, and whether any part thereof has been encroached upon by the Postal Department.” In the light of the direction contained in Annexure-1, the matter was taken up by the respondent no.6 giving rise to Case No.2 of 2005-06, who after going through the documents placed by the parties and appreciating the rival contentions, and upon local inspection being made, held that the actual pathway over which the petitioner is claiming right to use, exists merely on 4 feet 8 inch and not 10 feet as being claimed by the petitioner. It has been further found that there was no encroachment by the Postal Department. Rather the petitioner by claiming 10 feet passage was trying to encroach upon the land of the postal department. The finding of the respondent no.6 has been affirmed by the Collector, Bhagalpur in Encroachment Appeal No.85 of 4 2007-08 vide order dated 1.12.2007 as contained in Annexure-3. As there is conclusive finding of the fact by the respondent authorities regarding absence of encroachment by the Postal Department, this court would not interfere with orders passed by the Statutory authorities and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)