IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3199 of 2010 1. RAJESH SAH @ RAJESH KUMAR SAH S/O LATE SITA RAM SAH R/O VILL.- GAURA, P.S. TEGHRA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 2. BRAJ KUMAR SHARMA S/O BINDESHWARI SHARMA R/O VILL.- GAURA, P.S. TEGHRA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 3. RAJESH VERMA @ GANESH KUMAR S/O RAM CHANDRA PRASAD R/O VILL.- CHAKDED, P.S. TEGHRA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEGHRA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, TEGHRA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI ----------- 2 20.4.2010 This case illustrates how law and order problem is created by the district administration when there is none. The dispute, in question, is in relation to a piece of land at village Gaura, P.S. Teghra, District- Begusarai. The facts of the present case are that one Syed Abdul Ahad sold the land including the land, in question, to one Jamuna Prasad Singh by registered sale deed dated 22.2.1922. Jamuna Prasad Singh came in possession and died. His heirs sold the land to Pradip Narain Mishra, who, by registered sale deed dated 18.4.1959, sold the same to Sukan Sah . It is from the heirs of Sukan Sah that the petitioners got the land through registered sale deed in the year 2009. It appears that they are in peaceful possession of the land, which is not in dispute. It appears that one Bibi Khairum Nisa and Md. Bajibul, who were never in possession of the said land, executed a deed of gift in favour of the State of Bihar on 23.3.2002 in respect of the said land. Based on title acquired by the State by that gift deed, allegedly, in the 2 year 2004, a land Encroachment proceedings were initiated against the heirs of Sukan Sah being Land Encroachment No. 5/2004-05. These proceedings were initiated on an application by the local politicians. The petitioners, who were unaware of these proceedings , have purchased the land. When they were constructing boundary wall, suddenly the district administration raising bogies of communal tension and seeking to evict the petitioners in these encroachment proceedings, initiated proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C. and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid gift deed of the year 2002 in this encroachment proceedings initiated . The facts, noted above, clearly show that apart from gift deed aforesaid, State has no right in respect of the said land. The encroachment proceedings initiated substantially establish that the donors were never in possession of the land, which they gifted to the State. The land was in possession of others. Thus seeing these serious matters of disputed question of title, the question would be whether donor had any title in respect of the said land, which had been purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Therefore there are series of sale of estates starting from 1992. These questions, as has been repeatedly held by this Court and the Apex Court cannot be decided in these summary proceedings of removal of encroachment or such other proceedings. In view of the fact that the petitioners have been in possession of the land earlier to their vendors on basis of the sale 3 deed and are constructing boundary wall, if any person interferes then that would be creating law and order problem. It is first for the State to establish its title being the title of the donor and only then question of encroachment etc. would at all arise. That can only be deiced before Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and it is only through Court’s proceedings that petitioners can be dispossessed in execution of decree and not otherwise much-less on the plea of communal tension being created by persons, who are never in possession of the land. Thus, I restrain the district authority from interfering in any manner with the possession of the petitioners, which is admitted in order, in question, and if any person has grievance it is open to that person to move Civil Court of competent jurisdiction but not in this indirect method. All proceedings against the petitioners, which would have the effect of restraining the petitioners or disturbing their possession are thus quashed. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)