IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17432 of 2010 SK.MD.IBRAHIM, son of late Sk. Md. Siddique, resident of village, Hardi Nadwa (Murli), P.S. Chautarwa, DistrictWest Champaran.. ..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah, 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner (D.D.C.) West Champaran at Bettiah, 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O) Bagaha, Distt. West Champaran, 5. The Superintendent of Police (S.P., Bagaha, Distt. West Champaran, 6. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Bagaha, Distt. West Champaran, 7. The Bolck Development Officer, Chautarwa, Bagaha, Distt. West Champaran, 8. The Officer-in-Charge, Chautarwa Police Station, Bagaha, Distt. West Champaran, 9. Shankar Paswan, son of late Dudh Ram Paswan, resident of village Pipra, P.S. Chautarwa, Distt. West Champaran.. …….Respondents For the Petitioner: Wasi Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the State of Bihar: Smt. Nilu Agarwal, G.A.6, Sh. Krishna Murari Prasad, A.C. to G.A.6 ……………….. 5 05.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner claims to have filed this writ petition in public interest alleging that a particular area comprising plot Nos.1141 and 1142 in Village Hardi Nadwa (Murli) is a burial ground (Kabristan) and hence 2 encroachment from that land should be removed. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities, particularly from Annexures B and C, it transpires that the revenue authorities and some other officials went to the land in question and there the members of Muslim community alleged that the petitioner has made substantial encroachment upon the land which is recorded as Gair Majarua Malik and not in favour of any graveyard or temple. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Bagaha has recorded in Annexure “C” dated 03.12.2010 that on 01.12.2010, the petitioner did not appear in spite of notice. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the notice was served upon him on 02.12.2010 and not on 01.12.2010. Be that as it may, Annexure B discloses that pursuant to order dated 03.12.2010, contained in Annexure C, measurements were soon carried out in presence of large number of persons and according to the report contained in Annexure B dated 11.12.2010, the petitioner has himself encroached upon 0.51 decimals of plot No.1141. Encroachment by several 3 other persons has also been found as disclosed in the said report. Although petitioner disputes the correctness of the measurement and the report, but in Public Interest Litigation, we are not inclined to go into such disputed issues. Now when the authorities have taken note of the dispute and got the concerned land measured, it is expected that encroachment made upon public land shall be removed in accordance with law without any further delay. Petitioner has agreed that if encroachment is found against him then he will also have no objection against removal of such encroachment but encroachment by other persons should also be removed so that public land is not encroached by unauthorized persons. So far as issue of graveyard is concerned, according to the authorities survey records do not show the public land to be either burial place or a temple land but only as „Gair Majarua Malik‟. Hence we are not in a position to issue directions for any particular use of such public land. However, the concerned parties, if so advised, will be at liberty to establish their claims through 4 appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Sanjay-II (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)