IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13106 of 2010 1. NAZIR PRASAD S/O SRI SUGAMBAR PRASAD, R/O MOH.- DIGHA GHAT,POST OFFICE ROAD ,P.S.-DIGHA,DISTRICT AND TOWN PATNA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOH.- YADU VANSHI NAGAR, AKHARA ROAD,DIGHA,P.S.-DIGHA,DIST. & TOWN - PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR,PATNA. 2. COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ,PATNA 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PATNA. 4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,LAW & ORDER,PATNA. 5. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE ,SADAR,PATNA. 6. SMT.ILAICHI DEVI W/O SRI ALKOO CHOUDHARY R/O VILL. & POST OFFICE- PACHALAKHI,P.S.-NAUTAN,DIST.- SIWAN. 7. SHRI AKLOO CHOUDHARY S/O LATE SAIAL CHOUDHARY ,GOVERNMENT JEEP DRIVER OF COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ,PATNA. R/O VILL. & POST OFFICE- PACHALAKHI,P.S.-NAUTAN,DIST.- SIWAN. 8. SRI VISHWANATH CHOUDHARY S/O LATE JHAARU CHOUDHARY, HEAD CLER OF D.R.D.A.,PATNA. R/O VILL. & POST OFFICE- PACHALAKHI,P.S.-NAUTAN,DIST.- SIWAN. ----------- 5. 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for private respondent nos. 6 to 8. The petitioner is aggrieved by certain directions issued by the Patna District Administration directing him to remove encroachment failing it would be removed by use of force and for which direction has been issued to the Police also. The petitioner denies having made any encroachment and claims to be in possession of the vended lands in accordance with the sale deed dated 16.9.2008. It is submitted that no interference can be made with his property except in a manner permissible by law. The counter affidavit on behalf of the State 2 respondents seems to suggest that merely because the land in question may have been used as a passage for considerable time it has acquired the nature of a public land. That leaves the question open whether it is part of the vended lands or not. There can be no presumption of a person having stood deprived of the property unless he consciously waives the right. The State does not deny in the counter affidavit that no land encroachment proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for the alleged public road. If the private respondents were aggrieved by blockage of any public passage they had adequate remedy under Section 147 of the Cr. P.C. The Court does not approve of the manner in which the District Administration and the Police appear to have involved themselves for removing the alleged encroachment without any proper adjudication in accordance with law. The respondents are therefore restrained from interfering with the enjoyment and possession by the petitioner of the lands vended to him in its dimension as contained in the sale deed dated 16.9.2008 except in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)