Letters Patent Appeal No.568 OF 2006 (Against the judgment and order dated 28.03.2006,passed by learned Single Judge) **** 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 3. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Birauli, Darbhanga. 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Birauli, Darbhanga. 6. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Road, Darbhanga. 7. The Anchal Adhikari, Ghanshyampur, Darbhanga. 8. Gajendra Yadav S/O late Anant Yadav R/o vill. Pohaddi Bela, P.S. Ghanshyampur, Dist. Darbhanga ---------Respondents/Appellants Versus Kamal Nath Prasad @ Kamal Nath Sahu S/o Late Babu Sahef Sahu, Resident of Pohaddi Bela P.S.Ganshyampur, District- Darbhanga -------Petitioner/Respondent For the Appellants : Mr.Kumar Alok, S.C.19 For the Respondent : Mr. Kumar Alok Sinha, Advocate. For the Intervenor : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate & Mr. Ashok Kumar Prasad, Advocate. *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ** S.K.Katriar & K.K.Mandal,J.J. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 28.03.2006, whereby C.W.J.C.No. 5025 of 2005, preferred at the instance of the present respondent was allowed, action of the present appellants for removing the encroachment has been disapproved, and a sum of Rs. one lac has been directed to be paid to the respondent/writ petitioner for rehabilitation. 2 2. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ proceedings. C.W.J.C.No. 2724 of 2002 has been preferred by the members of the public alleging encroachment of a public road. The present appellant was a party respondent therein. The same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.09.2004 (Annexure-12), wherein it was noticed that encroachment proceedings bearing case no. 1 of 2002, for removal of encroachment was already pending before the learned Collector, Darbhanga. Therefore, a division Bench of this Court directed for disposal of the same in accordance with law, and carry the order to its logical conclusion. Consequently, the present appellants were heard by the learned Collector, and it was found that there was encroachment on plot no. 1149, leading to removal of the encroachment. The local inspection/measurement had been conducted in the presence of the Government Amin and the writ petitioner, leading to the finding of encroachment of plot no.1149, at the instance of the present appellants and several others. Aggrieved by the action of the authorities, the respondent herein preferred the present C.W.J.C.No. 5025 of 2005, which has been allowed and it has been held that the action of the authorities was arbitrary and with the consequential direction. Hence this appeal at the instance of the State of Bihar and its functionaries. 3. It appears on a perusal of the materials placed before us that the authorities had taken action under orders of this Court, which was passed in the presence of the present appellants, 3 who were party respondents. They did participate in the proceedings, and the local inspection was done in their presence. The respondent herein set up his case that he has right, title and interest over plot no. 2580. The respondent authorities considered this plea, and came to the conclusion that the respondent herein had encroached plot no. 1149, by setting up a structure thereon. We are, therefore, of the view that the authorities acted in a bonafide manner in pursuance of the order of this Court and reached the conclusion as to encroachment at the instance of the respondent herein with respect to plot no. 1149, on the basis of the materials placed on record. This is not to suggest for a moment that the conclusion is accurate or binding on the authorities. It is not possible for us in exercise of writ jurisdiction, on the basis of affidavits, to examine contentious issues relating to right, title and interest with respect to plot no. 1149. Therefore, it goes without saying that it will be open to the respondent to approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right title and interest which, if instituted, shall be disposed of in accordance with law including the law of limitation. 4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. We respectfully disagree with the order of the learned Single Judge. Patna High Court, Dated the 3rd May, 2010 Sym/NAFR (S.K.Katriar,J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)