IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.4047 OF 2008 1. VIKASH CHANDRA KAUSHIK 2. PRAKASH CHANDRA KAUSHI BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE NAREDNRA KUMAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAI, POLICE STATION PARWALPUR (EKANGARSARAI), DISTRICT NALANDA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIFF 2. THE COLLECTOR, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIFF 3. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, EKANGARSARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIFF *********** 4 01/12/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.09.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda in Encroachment Appeal No. 25/10..97/98 affirming the order dated 04.09.1997 passed in Encroachment Case No. 43 of 1996-97. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on 23.05.1979, an encroachment proceeding was initiated against him. The then Circle Officer did not proceed further with the encroachment proceeding finding that the petitioners were in possession. Subsequently, the matter remained in abeyance. The second encroachment proceeding was initiated in the year 1997-98. It has been alleged that the petitioners have been utilizing lands appertaining to Khata No. 338, plot no. 4381/5487, area 0.29 decimals. The petitioners are 2 said to have been running an aluminium factory on the said land, whereas the case of the State is the total denial of the fact that the petitioners had right of any sort on the lands in question. It is said that the lands has been described as Gair Mazarua Aam land and therefore, the Circle Officer as well as the appellate authority have directed that the petitioners should remove the encroachment on the said lands. The petitioners are claiming adverse possession by virtue o the fact that even according to the records of the State Government, they were in possession before 23.05.1979. The petitioners claim that they have got the right to remain on the land by virtue of being in possession of the land for over 20 years. In case, the petitioners are claiming adverse possession, the matter could only be decided by appropriate Civil Court. I find no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)