IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15645 of 2011 1. Ram Kishore Pandey son of late Laxman Narayan Pandey, resident of Satghara, P.S. Rajnagar, Dist. Madhubani. ----Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The State Board of Hindu Religious Trust through its Chairman Vidyapati Marg, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani. 5. The Circle Officer, Ranjanagar, Madhubani. 6. Smt. Santi Devi wife of late Chandeshwar Prasad Gupta, resident of Satghara, Muzzafarganj, P.S. Rajnagar. 7. Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani, Dist. Madhubani. --Respondents. ---------------------------------- 08 12.12.2011 Heard Ms. M.Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no. 21 for the State and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel for the State Board of Hindu Religious Trust and Mr. Ram Shankar Das, learned counsel for the respondent no.6. Petitioner questions the sustainability of the order dated 17.06.2011 (Annexure-14) whereby the respondent- Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani passed an order directing the respondent Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer),Rajnagar to measure the land of the respondent no.6 for which an application was filed before the said authority. Annexures 15, 16 and 17 are the consequential notices issued by the Circle Officer for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order as contained in Annexure-14 on the ground that the Sub Divisional Officer has no authority under the provisions of the Bengal Survey Act, 1875 ( for short „Act‟). In this connection, he placed reliance on Section 40 of the Act which reads as under:- 2 “40. Procedure in case of disputes as to boundary- If it shall come to the notice of the Collector, in the course of a survey under this Act, that dispute exists as to any boundary which should be surveyed, the Collector, after holding such inquiry as he may deem necessary, may determine such boundary as hereinafter provided.” Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that on previous occasion also such step was taken by the said respondent at the instance of the respondent no.6 which was assailed by the petitioner in this Court in CWJC No. 5823 of 2011. This Court by a proceeding dated 01.04.2011 disposed of the matter permitting the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for setting aside the order creating jamabandi of land in favour of respondent nos.6. Learned counsel for the State Board of Hindu Religious Trust contends while exercising power under the Act possession of any of the parties is not required to be disturbed. Learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no. 21 with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit contended that the authorities are not going to disturb the possession of the holder of the land. In terms of the order passed by the authority the land is only to be measured and demarcated. He placed reliance on averments made in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 which read as under:- “24. That the statement made in para-18 of the writ petition is not entirely correct rather the statement is extorted version of fact. It is humbly submitted that on the petition of respondent no.6 the S.D.O., Madhubani directed the C.O., Rajnagar to only measured the land according to law. 25. That it is humbly submitted that the story propounded by the petitioner regarding demarcation and handed over the possession to the respondent no.6 is quite wrong and illegal. The 3 S.D.O. neither directed nor ordered for demarcation and hand over the possession of the land in dispute to the respondent no.6.” There is no controversy that the land as on today stood recorded in the name of respondent no.6. The respondent no.6, having got the land mutated in her name, approached the authority under the Act for measurement and demarcation of land. It further appears that earlier also she invoked the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act and an order for measurement of land was passed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 5823 of 2011 (Annexure-12) which was disposed of in the following terms:- “Having heard the parties, the application is disposed of by the following order:- Let petitioner approach the said respondent within a period of 03 weeks along with a copy of the present order whereafter the respondent no.6 (DCLR, Madhubani) shall consider and dispose of the pending appeal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. By Annexure-9, step has been taken, on the request of respondent no.5, for measurement of the land claimed by her. This Court at this stage only observes that any action taken by the respondent(s) pursuant to the order creating jamabandi in the name of respondent no.5 shall be subject to the result of the appeal preferred by the petitioner or revision, if any, to be preferred by the parties thereagainst.” In view of the said order passed by this Court on the writ petition filed by the petitioner this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order. Moreover, Collector has been defined in Section 2 of the Act in the following manner:- “2. Interpretation Clause- In this Act unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context,- “ Collector” means every Collector of a 4 district, and includes every officer either generally or specially vested with the powers of a Collector for the purposes of this Act; “Deputy Collector” includes any Deputy Collector to whom the Collector or Superintendent of Survey may delegate any of his functions under this Act:” There is presumption of correctness in the governmental action. There is no averment or pleadings that the Sub Divisional Officer has not been delegated the power to exercise such jurisdiction. In absence thereof, in my view, the contention of the petitioner that the order contained in Annexure-14 is bad in law is fit to be rejected. This Court, therefore, does not find any illegality in the order contained in Annexure-14 and the consequential steps taken by the respondents to measure and demarcate the land. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)