IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1531 of 2009 ---- 1. SANTOSH KUMAR THAKUR S/O SRI RAMJEE THAKUR R/O VILL.- BALAPUR, P.S.- KALYANPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 2. SUDHIR KUMAR THAKUR S/O RAMJEE THAKUR R/O VILL.- BALAPUR, P.S.- KALYANPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR. -- APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR AT PATNA. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, WORKS DIVISION, SAMASTIPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE , SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KALYANPUR CIRCLE, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR. 6. BHUBANESHWAR THAKUR S/O LATE RAMASHIS THAKUR R/O VILL.- BALAPUR, P.S.- KALYANPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR. --- RESPONDENTS. ----- For the appellants : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents-State : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A.-10 Mr. Zaki Haider, AC to G.A-10 For respondent no.6 : Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate. ---- 03. 03.02.2010 In this intra-court appeal the challenge is to the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.365 of 2009. 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The sixth respondent, who was the writ petitioner, assailed the action of the State Government that a road was being constructed - 2 - on the private plots belonging to the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge after referring to the certain documents, especially the report of the Anchal Amin, has expressed the view that the State cannot encroach upon the ‘khatiani’ land of the writ petitioner as the right of the writ petitioner is admitted. After so stating, the learned Single Judge proceeded to state it is for the authorities to prove the right of the State that there was a kachcha road which was in existence and was in possession of the State by filing a civil suit in competent court. 3. The present appellants who were arrayed as respondents were not noticed. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that they had purchased the property in question by way of sale deed. In any case, the report of the Anchal Amin could not have been regarded as the Bible to confer the benefit of right, title and interest on the writ petitioner. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that when the State had not been able to prove - 3 - any kind of right, except a bald stand that it was a kachcha road, the finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has actually given credence to the Anchal Amin’s report and expressed the view that the stand of the writ petitioner as regards the right, title and interest on the land in question is admitted. The said admission by the State cannot abrogate the rights of the present appellants. 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as far that part is concerned and direct that the present appellants as well as the private respondent are at liberty to establish their respective rights before the appropriate civil court, if advised in law. As far as direction to the State to establish its right that the road was a kachcha road, the same is affirmed. Any other direction for removal of encroachment is also set aside as the inter-se right between the appellants and the private respondent is in dispute. - 4 - 8. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)