IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1280 of 2009 DEONATH YADAV, S/o Late Chhote Yadav, R/o Village- Nawalpur, P.S.-Nawalpur, District-West Champaran. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 2. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 3. The Anchal Adhikari, Jogapatti, Anchal, Jogapatti, West Champaran. ….. Respondents. ----------- 4. 28-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. By this writ petition, order dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure-7) by which Anchal Adhikari, Jogpatti (Respondent no. 3) allowed Encroachment Case No. 3 of 2007-08 and the petitioner was directed to remove his house from the land in question. Petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure-8) by which the Collector, West Champaran (Respondent no. 2) dismissed Appeal Case No. 57 of 2008-09. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two plots namely Plot No. 1644/2 and Plot No. 1639, out of which petitioner does not have any claim over Plot No. 1644/2 which belongs to the school. He further submits that so far Plot No. 1639 is concerned, the President of Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti has raised his claim up till this court and has lost. Hence, he claims that the impugned orders of the authorities concerned are absolutely illegal and perverse. 4. The question involved in this case is not that 2 whether the land namely Plot No. 1639 belongs to the Vidyalaya rather the question is whether the plot in question namely Plot No. 1639 belongs to the petitioner or it is encroached by him. In this connection Annexure-1 and Annexure-3 of the writ petition clearly show that Plot No. 1639 was Gairmajarua Malik Land under Khata No. 3 of Mauza Navalpur in the district of Champaran. However, the petitioner has neither produced any copy of Return or of Jamabandi, or of mutation order or of settlement order or any other chit of paper to show that the land ever belonged to him or to his predecessor. 5. On the other hand, the documents on record clearly prove that the land in question was a public land and the petitioner had constructed his house over the same which is a clear case of encroachment as has also been found by the authorities after holding enquiries in accordance with Law after giving full opportunity to the petitioner. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)