IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.920 of 2009 Birju Mishra, son of Late Neeraj Mishra, village Shuria, PS Andhrathari, District Madhubani – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Collector, Madhubani. 3) The Addl. Collector, Madhubani. 4) The Subdivisional Officer, Jhanjharpur, Dist. Madhubani. 5) The Anchal Adhikari, Andhrathari, Dist. Madhubani – Respondents. 3 8.12.2011 I.A. No. 5856 of 2011 filed for adding Kari Roy as respondent is allowed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the intervener. This writ petition has been filed with respect to three plots of land in the cadastral survey being plot nos. 1843 measuring 9 dhurs, 1839 measuring 18 dhurs and 1867 measuring 7 kathas and 14 dhurs. An order was passed by this court in CWJC No. 9198/2008 in a public interest litigation, filed on behalf of one Bechan Rai in which a prayer was made that the encroachment from the public road with respect to khata no. 195, Khesra nos. 1843, 1867 and 1868 should be removed by the State authorities. The Circle Officer had filed a counter affidavit in which it was said that notices have been issued to the encroachers. The court, therefore, observed that the Circle Officer should act according to law and remove the encroachment. On the basis of the aforesaid order of the High court the encroachment was removed. The petitioner refers to the notices issued to him vide Annexures 3 and 4. Notices indicate that the encroachment 2 proceeding were initiated with respect to plot nos. 1843 and 1868. It is apparent here that no encroachment proceeding was initiated as far as plot nos. 1839 and 1867 are concerned. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application before this court. This court did not entertain the review application which is apparent from the order, dated 6.2.2009 (Annexure-D to the counter affidavit). The court observed that since no opinion was expressed by the court with respect to the merits of the case, there is no ground for entertaining the review application. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in the garb of the court’s order, the petitioner has been displaced from plot no. 1843 (the subject matter of the encroachment proceeding), 1839 and 1867. It is specifically stated and submitted that since there is no encroachment proceeding with respect to plot nos. 1839 and 1867, there is no occasion for the Circle Officer or the State authorities to displace the petitioner from these plots of land. The dispute, if any, was related to plot no. 1843. The case of the petitioner is that during the revisional survey, plot nos. 1843 and 1839 were amalgamated and a new plot no. 2491 was created. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the cadastral survey the public road was shown to be measuring 9 decimals, whereas in the revisional survey the land has shrunk and measureed 4 decimals. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this part of the lands have been settled by the State to the petitioner and, therefore, the public road now measures only 4 decimals. It is apparent that the dispute with respect to removal 3 of encroachment from plot nos. 1843 and 1839 arises out of the amalgamation of the land into one big chunk which has resulted in displacing the petitioner from plot no. 1839 as well. Counsel for the intervener, on the other hand, submits that the public road should be demarcated to allow easy access to the villagers. At this juncture I may point out that T.S. No. 43/2006 was filed by the petitioner for declaration of title with respect to plot nos. 1843, 1839 and 1867, considering the fact that the State had displaced the petitioner from all three plots of land. The State was also added as a party, in the suit apart from the intervener. As far as the prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is concerned, this court would not like to pass any order with respect to plot no. 1843. As far as cadastral survey plot nos. 1839 and 1867 are concerned, it is quite apparent that no encroachment proceeding was initiated with respect to these plots. It may be noted here that the State of Bihar had conducted the encroachment proceeding in accordance with cadastral survey plot numbers, which differs from plot numbers in the revisional survey. This court, therefore, directs that while dealing with these issues, respondent no. 5 should consider this aspect of the matter. The problem viz-a-viz the State of Bihar and the petitioner can easily be resolved by simple measurement of the plots. The Circle Officer while conducting the measurement should notice all the concerned parties specially the intervener i.e. Kari Roy as well as Bechan Rai in order to avoid further litigation. The Circle Officer 4 should also take into account the revisional survey records in order to come to a correct finding with respect to public road which is on plot no. 1843. As far as plot no. 1867 is concerned, apparently it has been declared as Bihar Sarkar Anabad which is under challenge in T.S. No. 43/2006. Therefore, this court is not required to pass any order in this regard except to say that the Circle Officer would be bound by the findings in the suit. Plot no. 1839 would need to be measured. It is the specific case of the petitioner that plot nos. 1843 and 1839 have been amalgamated and have been renumbered as revisional plot no. 2491. This measurement must be done keeping this fact in mind. The petitioner would be at liberty to produce a copy of this order before the Circle Officer, respondent no.5 within one month from the date of its receipt and the Circle Officer should act in accordance with the directions given above and pass appropriate orders. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)