IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3746 of 2008 Indranand Mishra, son of Sri Jugeshwar Mishra, village Navhatta, PS Pandaul, District Madhubani – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Collector, Madhubani. 3) The Addl. Collector, Madhubani. 4) The Subdivisional Magistrate Sadar, Madhubani. 5) D.C.L.R. Sadar, Madhubani. 6) The Anchal Adhikari, Pandaul, Dist. Madhubani. 7) Anand Kumar Mishra, son of Maha Kant Mishra, village Navhath, PS Pandaul, Dist. Madhubani – Respondents. 5 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures 12 and 14 by which the land encroachment case has been dropped on the ground that the land in question is raiyati land and as such the provision of the Land Encroachment Act would not be applicable. The land which is the subject matter of dispute is plot no. 2746 which was the raiyati land of the petitioner as well as respondent no.7. During the revisional survey the land has been recorded as lane and both the parties do not dispute the fact that the lane was carved out out of the raiyati land which was being used by the villagers with consent of both the petitioner and respondent no.7. The land measures .3 decimals and it has been utilized for linking the village road to the main road. After partition the petitioner was allocated 8.14 dhurs of land of plot nos. 2745 and 2744 whereas respondent no.7 was allocated 8.5 dhurs of land appertaining to plot no. 2747. The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent no.7 has encroached upon the lane whereas respondent no. 7 claims 2 that it is the petitioner who has encroached the lane. There are two conflicting reports of Amins. The earlier report indicates that respondent no.7 encroached upon the land whereas the later report indicates that the petitioner has encroached to the extent of 10 Kadi. The position is that in the revisional survey, the land although raiyati has been shown as a lane and is being used as such, there is no dispute between the parties who were erstwhile owners of the said land that they have carved out .3 decimals out of their share which was and is being utilized as lane. Thus, in my opinion it would be a fit case in which the State can intervene. In the facts aforesaid, I direct that the petitioner and respondent no.7 should appear before the Circle Officer within one month on receipt of the order and file Khatiyan as well as documents relating to plot nos. 2745, 2744, 2747 which would indicate the area of the land occupied by each of the party. The Circle officer would then fix a date for measurement in presence of the petitioner and respondent no.7. The petitioner and respondent no.7 both are at liberty to engage their private Amin who will work along with the State Amin while taking measurement. The petitioner and respondent no.7 cannot in future raise the issue that they were not given due notice by the Circle Officer as the Circle Officer would be required to fix a date of measurement on production of a copy of this order along with their petitions. Once the measurement is done, it would be incumbent on the Circle Officer to identify the lane to avoid future 3 litigation. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)