IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5921 of 2002 Bhim Sah, son of Late Sakaldeo Sah, resident of Village-Madhepura, P.S. Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Muzaffarpur. 2. The Circle Officer, Gaighat, District-Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Board, Muzaffarpur, thrugh its Chairman. 4. The Chairman-cum-Executive Officer, District Board, Muzaffarpur. 5. Mathura Prasad Singh, son of Late Balak Singh, resident of village-Baghakhal, P.S. Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur. ------ Respondents ----------- 5 18/4/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for respondent no.5. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for setting aside the settlement of the land of the petitioner bearing Khesra Ns. 3871 and 3872 in favour of Respondent no.5 made vide Receipt No. 4925 dated 22.3.2002 and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment made over the land of the petitioner by some unauthorized persons.” In the opinion of this Court, there is a peculiar situation in this case. The petitioner claims the land in question as his own land and respondent no.5 says that the land in question belongs to the District Board, Muzaffarpur which has been settled to him by the District Board. The Collector under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) has found that on account of such settlement public thoroughfare has been adversely affected. That would mean that the land in question is a public land within the meaning of the aforesaid Act. 2 The petitioner, however, insists that it is his private land. Obviously, such factual disputes between the petitioner, District Board and the respondent no.5 relating to title of the land can be only gone into in a properly constituted civil suit filed by any person who is aggrieved. The settlement of the land by the District Board in favour of the respondent no.5 was only for a period of three years and that period has already come to an end. The order passed by the Anchaladhikari on 10.4.2002 is an appealable order and the petitioner instead of approaching this Court ought to have filed an appeal wherein the Collector of the district being the appellate authority was in a better position to appreciate as to whether on account of settlement made by the Zila Parishad public thoroughfare has been/ is being adversely affected. Taking all these aspect into consideration, this Court would hold that this writ application is wholly misconceived, but at the same time while dismissing this writ application this Court would observe that the petitioner may approach the Civil Court for getting his right, title and possession declared by impleading State of Bihar, Zila Parishad and respondent no.5 as defendants. At the same time this Court would also direct the Zila Parishad to make an over all assessment of the matter to find out as to whether on account of such settlement made in favour of respondent no.5 and if continued to be made in future to any one including respondent no.5, public thoroughfare as pointed out in the order of the Anchaladhikari dated 10.4.2002 will be affected. 3 In the event the authority of the Zila Parishad would find that there is no encroachment on the road and the public thoroughfare has not been affected in any manner, it would continue with its power of settlement of land till the issue of right, title and possession of the petitioner is decided by the competent civil court. However, in case of the Zila Parishad would find that such settlement of land in question is detrimental to public interest and is an obstruction in any manner in the traffic and/or public thoroughfare, it would stop making settlement of the said land in future with any person. It goes without saying that if the petitioner files a civil suit any observation made by any of the authority clouding right, title and possession of the petitioner by itself will not cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner and the Civil Court will decide the question on the basis of evidence led by the parties. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)