IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6604 of 2004 SMT.KUSUM DEVI D/O MAHABIR PRASAD, W/O SRI GOVIND PRASAD RAJGARHIA, RESIDING IN MOHALLA LAL BAZAR, P.O. AND P.S. BETTIAH TOWAN, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN – PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. 2. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (D.D.C.), WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT BOARD, BETTIAH, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN --- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Mahindra Kumar, Advocate For Zila Parishad,Bettiah: Mr. Bashistha Narayan Mishra, Advocate. ------- 3/ 30-03-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction that the District Board, (Zila Parishad) Bettiah and its functionaries may be restrained from making any pucca construction for establishment of certain shops on the flank of a public road in front of the land of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that for similar relief Title Suit No. 61 of 2004 was filed in the court of learned Munsif, Bettiah, but subsequently same was withdrawn on the legal advice. He further submits that if the constructions are permitted to be made by the District Board, Bettiah, then easementary rights of the petitioner shall be adversely 2 affected. 4. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3 as also Zila Parishad, Bettiah, has strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition by placing heavy reliance on the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3. He further submits that as a matter of fact, 80 kari wide public road is situate over plot no. 311 and lands of plot no. 191 belongs to Zila Parishad, Betiah, whereas plot no. 1030 belongs to petitioner. It is also submitted that even if some constructions are made by the Zila Parishad, Bettiah, over plot no. 191, then in that case also the petitioner cannot have any valid grievance, since constructions are not being made either on public road or flank of the road. The constructions shall exclusively be made on the land belonging to the Zila Parishad, Bettiah and not beyond that. 5. In view of the disputed question of facts involved in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is at all aggrieved with the action of Zila Parishad, Bettiah and its officials, then she has got two remedies available to her under law firstly, if her easementary right is otherwise affected, then she has remedy under the provision of section 147 Cr. 3 P.C. to file a petition before an Executive Magistrate for having her easementary right declared, and secondly, if any portion of land of plot no. 191 is claimed by the petitioner or any construction is made by the Zila Parishad, Bettiah beyond the area of plot no. 191, then she can file a suit before a Civil court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate reliefs. Apparently, in the backdrop of the case and in view of the disputed question of facts, the issues raised herein cannot be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with the observations made above particularly in the light of stand taken on behalf of the Zila Parishad, Bettiah (West Champaran). No costs. BTiwary/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)