IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10334 of 2008 MOHAN LAL CHAUDHARY, son of late Meghi Choudhary, resident of village – Banmankhi Tola, Dhokar Dhara, P S – Banmankhi, District – Purnea Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Purnea, District – Purnea. 3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Sub Divisional Officer, Banmankhi, P.S. Banmankhi, District- Purnea. 4. Anchal Adhikari, Anchal – Banmankhi, PS – Banmankhi, District – Purnea. ----------- 03. 06.08.2009 I.A. No. 4616 of 2009 has been filed for staying the order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Banmankhi in Land Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2005-06 as well as the appellate order dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Collector, Purnea in Land Encroachment Appeal No. 152 of 2006. The impugned orders are annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application. Since counter affidavit has now been filed by the respondent State authorities and keeping in mind the statements made in para 6 of the said counter affidavit, no purpose will be served by passing an order in the interlocutory application as the writ application is sought to be disposed of. The short facts which emerge are that the land in question belonged to Maharajdhiraj Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga which subsequently vested in the State. Petitioner is one of the purchasers of the property by a valid document from one Jugat Tatma and thereafter one Bindeshwari Kuer. The petitioner claims to have acquired the right from one Yoganand Singh. The problem for the petitioner has arisen according to him - 2 - due to a wrong entry in the revisional survey khatiyan. The settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner was made way back in Settlement Case no.354 of 1973-74 but merely on a wrong report of the Halka Karmchari, respondent authorities have passed orders to evict the petitioner from the said property treating the land to be public land having been encroached upon. With the categorical stand having been taken in para 6 of the counter affidavit duly sworn by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Banmankhi and the law as has been laid down in the case of Smt. Uma Devi Sinha v. State of Bihar & others, 2001 (2) PLJR 587, the proper remedy in such a situation for the State is to seek a declaration by a competent civil court, since right and title is an issue in the present case. The ratio of the case categorically lays down that a person in occupation of such land cannot be evicted by a summary proceeding under Public Land Encroachment Act till the right and title is declared by the competent civil court in favour of the respondent State. The law being what it is, the writ application is allowed. The orders dated 18.11.2006 and 16.5.2008 contained in Annexures-1 and 2, stand quashed. The petitioner will not be disturbed till the respondent State gets a declaration from a civil court of competent jurisdiction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)