IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9700 of 2006 Indra Nand Jha son of Ravindra Jha, resident of village Sinuar Gopal, P.S. Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga … …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Collector of Darbhanga, 3. Additional Collector, Darbhanga, 4. Anchal Adhikari, Bahadurpur, Darbhanga, 5. Sadanand Kumar son of late Niras Kumar, 6. Prabha Acharya, son of late Musai Acharya, 7. Radha Kumar son of late Tunni Kumari, 8. Kailash Kumar son of Sri Paltu Kumar, 9. Sulana Devi wife of Sri Surendra Kumar, 10. Indu Jha wife of Sri Dinesh Kunwar, 11. Ashok Kumar son of Sri Nandu Kumar, All residents of village Sinuar Gopal, P.S. Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga … … … Respondents For the Petitioners: M/s Ambar Nath Banerjee and Bishwa Nath Choudhary, Advocates For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 10 ----------- 7 18.07.2011 By filing this writ application the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.01.2003 passed by the Additional Collector, Darbhanga in Case No. 1/2000-2001, whereby the order dated 18.07.2000 passed in Encroachment Case No. 5 of 1999-2000 by the Anchaladhikari has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. I have heard the parties and perused the records of the case. 2 The petitioner claims that the land was settled in favour of his ancestors before 1920 and, thereafter, upon partition in his family by a registered deed of partition, a copy of which is appended as Annexure 2, the land appertaining to plot no. 29, khata no. 34, thana no. 586 of mouja Ahmad Shujbal, District Darbhanga, was allotted to the petitioner’s branch and since then his family is in possession thereof and has made some construction thereupon. Thus, it is claimed that the respondents- authorities have illegally directed the petitioner to remove encroachment and construction standing thereupon after holding that the plot in question is a Aam Rasta, that has been encroached by the petitioner. The proceeding was initiated at the behest of certain persons, who have been impleaded as private respondents in this writ application. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed without proper verification and without properly appreciating the documents produced and evidence adduced by the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was, at the time of initiation of the encroachment proceeding, in possession of plot no. 29 for more than 82 years and as 3 such, he could have been given benefit of adverse possession. However, on being confronted at the time of hearing to show any document in support of alleged settlement in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner or any revenue record prepared by the revenue authorities that the petitioner was in continued possession of the land, though time was granted to the landlord to file supplementary affidavit appending therewith all the documents, he could produce nothing. The only document, which the petitioner relies upon, is the registered deed of partition of the year 1920, whereby he claims that the land in question was allotted to his branch. The petitioner has also annexed one document as contained in Annexure 14, however, at the time of hearing of this case, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate from the document as to for what purpose it was brought on record. By way of last resort, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relevant part of the trespasser register of the concerned Zamindar was produced in the land encroachment proceeding, which shows entry of the name of the petitioner, but the same has not been properly considered by the authorities. 4 From perusal of the appellate order, as contained in Annexure 1, it appears that the appellate authority has recorded finding that plot no. 29 stands recorded in the revisional survey as “Anavad Sarva Sadharan”. However, the petitioner has not produced any document either to confront this finding or to show his title over the land in question. As a last resort, he has placed reliance upon the entry of the name of the ancestors of the petitioner in trespasser register maintained by the landlord concerned. However, it has been recorded in the impugned order that in that register also, the name of the petitioner’s ancestor, appears to have been recorded as trespasser and, thus, the same cannot confer any title upon the petitioner. So far the question of adverse possession is concerned, for deciding such claim the person claiming adverse possession has to demonstrate that the three ingredients i.e. nec vi, nec clam and nec precario, are available and demonstrable, however, the petitioner could demonstrate nothing. That apart, the Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram v. Jyoti Prasad & Anr., reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court, 952, has held that encroachment upon public street is a continuing wrong and cause of action is created as long as injury 5 continues. Hence for the purpose of removal of encroachment it cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Thus, in my view the petitioner cannot claim benefit by raising a plea of adverse possession in this case. In above view of the fact that the authorities have recorded a clear cut finding that the petitioner has encroached upon the public land in question, in the absence of any material produced on behalf of the petitioner to show any illegality in such finding, this Court does not find any merit in this case. This writ application, being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)