IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.293 of 2008 1. ABDUL RAHIM, 2. MD. SALIM, 3. MD. SAFIQUE, 4. MD. IMAM HASAN, ALL SONS OF MD. USMAN. 5. JEBUL NISSA WIFE OF MD. AKHTAR, 6. SAKILA KHATOON WIFE OF MOLLANA MD. AKHTAR, 7. VAKILA KHATOON WIFE OF MD. HASHIM, 8. MD. USMAN, S/O LATE MD. DILAWAR. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-BASUARRAH, P.S. MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 3. THE DEPUTY LAND REFORMS COLLECTOR, SADAR, MADHUBANI. 4. CIRCLE OFFICER, RAHIKA, MADHUBANI. 5. RAMDEO RAI S/O NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BHAWRA, P.S. & DIST. MADHUBANI. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 10.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, land Reforms, Sadar, Madhubani in Misc. Case No.15 of 2002-03 where under the Jamabandi No.1348 in the name of Bibi Somni, the mother of petitioner nos.1 to 4 has been cancelled on the ground that the said land has been recorded during the revisional survey in the name of the State of Bihar. He is further aggrieved by the order dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the - 2 - Collector, Madhubani in Revision Case No.111 of 2005-06 where under the revision filed against the original order dated 23.11.2005 (Annexure-2) has been dismissed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that against the revisional survey entry recording the lands in question in favour of the State of Bihar, petitioner nos.1 to 4 have filed Title Suit No.5 of 2005 under section 106 of the B.T. Act and until the aforesaid title suit is not dismissed by the competent authority, the revenue authorities have erroneously proceeded to accept the revisional survey entry to be final. On the other hand, counsel for the State as also private respondent no.5 has submitted that the revisional survey entry was made long ago and on such basis when steps were taken to secure the lands in question for public utility i.e. to maintain the drain over the lands in question by the authorities of the State of Bihar, the petitioner proceeded to file the aforesaid title suit and this Court should be slow in directing the authorities to await the result - 3 - of the aforesaid Title Suit No.5 of 2005 filed under Section 106 of the B.T. Act. It is further asserted by the counsel for respondent no.5 that the portion of the lands in question is a public drain and the petitioners are only trying to change the user of the drain for their private purpose by filling earth over the same and thereby are affecting the free flow of water from the village to the outer area. Having heard counsel for the petitioners, State and the private respondent, I am of the view that Collector of the District should visit the land in question personally and find for himself whether any portion of the land in question is a public drain and if the finding of the learned Collector is in affirmative that the portion of the lands in question is a drain then the Collector should ensure, whoever has encroached the drain, the encroachment is removed forthwith. The other portions of the land in question beyond the drain should await the disposal of the title suit filed by the petitioners i.e. Title Suit No.5 of 2005 - 4 - N.H./ under Section 106 of the B.T. Act in which the private respondent no.5 is permitted to intervene on behalf of the villagers. The Collector of the District is directed to conduct the enquiry in the light of this order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the parties. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)