IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1162 of 2010 SURENDRA SHARMA S/O LATE RAM NANDAN SINGH R/O MUHALLA HORILGANJ, JEHANABAD, P.S. JEHANABAD SADAR, DISTT.- JEHANABAD. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CABINET SECRETARIAT DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. SECRETARY, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE CELL, CABINET SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD 5. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD 6. DEMARCATION OFFICER, JEHANABAD 7. CIRCLE OFFICER, JEHANABAD 8. AJAY KUMAR S/O RAM RATAN SHARMA R/O MOHALLA HORILGANJ, JEHANABAD, P.S. JEHANABAD CIRCLE, DISTT.- JEHANABAD 9. JAIMALA SHARMA W/O AJAY KUMAR R/O MOHALLA HORILGANJ, JEHANABAD, P.S. JEHANABAD CIRCLE, DISTT.- JEHANABAD ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar. For the State : Mr. R.C.P. Bharti. Md. Aslam Ansari. For the respondent no.8&9 : Mr. Ramakant Sharma. Mr. Laxmikant Sharma. ------------- 04 23.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for petitioner, the State and Respondent Nos.8&9. Perused the report of the Collector, Jehanabad to this Court and with consent of parties the writ petition is disposed of at this stage itself. This Court is indeed disturbed with the facts of this case including the conduct of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jehanabad. At the request of this Court, enquiry was entrusted to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jehanabad. I regret that this Court expected a responsible, informed and impartial report which expectations stands totally belied. The petitioner has his house at Mohalla-Horilganj in - 2 - Jehanabad town. His immediate neighbour is one Ajay Kumar, son of Ram Ratan Sharma, respondent no.8. There is dispute between the two with regard to encroachment by one on the others land and public land, that is, allegedly by Surendra Sharma. Sri Ajay Kumar is in government service. At the relevant time in the beginning he was in Land Demarcation Office at Jehanabad. Initially, he got a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. initiated against the petitioner for causing encroachment on public land, thus hindering public way. Those proceedings were numbered as Misc. Case No.1440M/96 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jehanabad. The matter was enquired into and the Special Executive Officer, Jehanabad Municipality, who was shown to be the applicant, informed the Court that on proper measurement no such encroachment was found and the proceeding is closed. Pursuant thereto, the Sub Divisional Officer on 19.04.2000 passed an order closing the proceedings noticing the various facts. This was done in the year 2000. In the year 2004 again a demarcation proceeding was initiated. Let it be noted that respondent no.8 was an Assistant in the Demarcation Office itself. Proceedings are shown to have been started with a notice having been served on the petitioner and a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was appointed. On report of the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner an order was passed. Petitioner states that he does know of these proceedings or measurement being done. The Collector in his report to this Court - 3 - clearly points out that notice was served on the petitioner and measurement was done in his presence and proceedings concluded in his presence. That on the face of it is false. The records of the proceedings, as appended by the Collector himself, would show that there was just an order that notice had been served. The entire order sheet of the demarcation case which runs into several pages shows that petitioner was never present. When it comes to Pleader Commissioner’s report that report itself says that when the Pleader Commissioner went on the spot for measurement, he noticed the petitioner, and he was informed that the petitioner has gone to Patna, and not present. Still for some curious reason, he carried on with the measurement behind the back of the petitioner and submitted his report, which the Collector wants this Court to believe was taken in presence of the petitioner and in the knowledge of petitioner. It is for this reason I call the report of the Collector false. The second issue that arises right here is that the Collector has appended the order sheet of the said case which is a photocopy of the certified copy. The certified copy had been obtained in the year 2006. It remains a question as to who supplied the certified copy to the Collector? It clearly means that the Collector did not get the record inspected himself. He was acting on someone’s instruction and someone was supplying him the material. That is not what the Court wanted to the Collector to do. The Collector was acting as an Officer of this Court to make independent and impartial enquiry. The expectations of this Court - 4 - stands totally belied. Then, the petitioner states that this order in these proceedings having been passed in the year 2006, nothing happened. Then, this very respondent-Ajay Kumar moved the Chief Secretary stating that no action was being taken pursuant to various orders passed in proceedings. The Chief Secretary informs the Collector and the Collector immediately and innocently takes all actions in the year 2009-10 to implement all orders passed earlier, orchestrated by respondent no.8 in those proceedings, which are encroachment proceedings, purporting to be for implementation of orders passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. proceedings in the year 2000, and the demarcation proceedings which ended in the year 2006. On 15.01.2010 petitioner appears in the encroachment proceedings. On the very next date i.e.17.02.2010 case is closed on compromise. What is most curious is, this compromise is on intervention of senior officials, being the District Land Acquisition Officer and other including Police Officers, which is entered into in December 2009. This Court’s order dated 16.02.2010, by which enquiry was entrusted to the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, records that after the order was dictated petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that his boundary wall has been demolished. The Collector in his report says that there was no hot haste and admits demolition of boundary wall. If there was a real compromise in December - 5 - 2009 then where was the question of demolishing boundary wall. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that part of the boundary wall has been restored at the behest of the State. It may now be noted that respondent no.8 is now in the District Land Acquisition Office, whose in-charge officer has presided over the compromise along with Circle Officer, though in the order sheet of the encroachment proceeding there are mention of the police officer as well. This clearly shows that because of the patronage enjoyed by respondent no.8 all senior district officials are getting involved in this petty dispute between the two neighbours. The District Magistrate agrees to mislead this Court and submit a false report. Compromise is thrust upon the writ petitioner. Then, the petitioner’s grievance is that he applied for certified copy of the earlier demarcation case, which had ended in the year 2006 of which he had no knowledge, and admittedly he never participated in it. His Chirkut (application for certified copy) was returned by the office with a noting that the file is with Ajay Kumar, who was then Assistant in the Demarcation Office itself, and an interested party. The Collector has not explained how and why this endorsement was made. All he has said was that in the year 2006 the said Ajay Kumar had returned the file. Unwittingly, it is an admission, when the order is said to have been passed, the file was being handled by Ajay Kumar, who was the party with whom the whole dispute was, and no one finds it curious or anything wrong with this, much less the District Magistrate. - 6 - In these facts, I have no option but to order that the State and its instrumentalities would not interfere with any part of the property in possession of the petitioner at any point of time except in execution of a decree of competent Civil Court. The facts above, if I can quote the words of the Apex Court as far back as in AIR 1961 SC 1570 in the case of Bishan Das and others V. State of Punjab and others where dealing with the action of the State under Public Premises Eviction Act, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court recorded thus:- “……….The reasons given for this extraordinary action are, to quote what we said in Sahi’s case (supra), remarkable for their disturbing implications…….” How all district officials gang up to help one citizen as against another is illustrated by this case. The report submitted by the Collector to this Court will form part of the records. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Let a copy of this order along with order dated 16.02.2010 of this Court passed in this case be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna for appropriate action as he may consider. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)