IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8298 of 2002 1. MAYA KUMARI W/o LakshmanPrasad, resident of village manichhapar. 2. Raj Ballam Choudhary son of late Bahadur Choudhary resident of village-Rupan Chak. 3. Ashok Kumar son of late Mohan Sopnar, resident of village hathua. 4. Sri Ramjee Sonar son of late lakshman Sonar, resident of village- Hathua. 5. Ram Balak Puri son of late Nathuni Puri resident of village-Machhagar. All are of P.S. Mirganj, Dist. Gopalgan.....petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Gopalganj,District Gopalganj. 3. The Circle Officer, Hathua District Gopalganj, 4. The Circle Inspepctor Hathua, District Gopalaganj ....Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate Mr.Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Kritya Nand Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, A.C. to A.A.G.III. 7 03.12.2010 Heard the parties. This, in fact, is second round of litigation before this court at the behest of the petitioners. When certain directions were issued by this court in CW.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990 (Arun Kumar Mukharjee & others Vs. The State of Bihar & others) and when actions were being taken by the authorities in different parts of the State including in the district of Gopalganj, the petitioners apprehended that their residential houses/shops standing over a plot of land bearing Khata 2 No. 225, Khesara No 128, situate at village Hathua in the district of Gopalganj may also be demolished, they moved before this Court and filed C.W.J.C. No. 9422 of 1998 with a prayer that authorities may be restrained from removing them from the lands in question. Aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 18.11.1998 (Annexure-4) and matter was remitted to the District Collector, Gopalganj with a direction to pass a fresh order after considering the grievances raised by the petitioners with respect to lands in dispute. In the light of the aforesaid order, the respondent District Collector passed a final order on 20.5.2002 in Misc. Case No. 98 of 1998 (Annexure-8), which has been impugned herein in the present proceeding. By the aforesaid order, the respondent District collector held the lands in question is a public land and, the petitioners are encroachers over the same, and as such, Circle Officer, Hathua was directed to remove encroachment from the lands in question within a period of one months. The petitioners claim that they or their ancestors are the settlees by the ex-landlord during the year 1930 to 1940 and on the basis of aforesaid settlement, they claim to be coming in possession over the same. According to the petitioners, they are coming in possession over the land in question for more than 30 3 to 40 years and therefore, they have acquired right and title over the same on the basis of adverse possession. One of the petitioners claim to have purchased some portion of land through a registered sale deed and on that basis, he claims to be the owner of that portion of the lands. Mr. Mannan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that in the aforesaid background the respondent collector has committed an illegality in directing respondent Anchaladhikari to remove the structures of the petitioners over the lands in question by treating them encroachers. In his submission, if the authorities wanted to remove the petitioners from the lands in question , then they could have got title decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Learned Assistant Counsel to A.A.G-3 submits that the petitioners have not produced any documents in support of their title over the lands in question. According to him even the alleged Patta showing settlement of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners or their ancestors by the ex-landlord have not been produced. At the time of vesting of Zamindari, the name of the petitioners or their ancestors were not mentioned in the return filed by the ex-landlord and that creates a doubt about the claim of settlement made in 4 favour of the petitioners or their ancestors by the ex- landlord. He has further drawn attention of this Court that even during the revisional survey proceeding, the petitioners have not been found in possession of the lands in question and their names have not been recorded in the revisional survey Khatiyan and as such, petitioners are the encroachers over the lands in question. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. From the findings recorded by the learned District Collector, it appears that major portions of the encroachment allegedly made by the petitioners have been removed from the lands in question. However some part of the lands are still in possession of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even after passing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 20.5.2002 (Annexure-8), the petitioners are continuing in possession over the remaining portion of the lands in question. In view of nature of controversy between the parties and in view of claim of title on the basis of adverse possession and further in view of findings recorded by the learned District Collector that the petitioners are encroachers over the lands in question, it is very difficult 5 for this court to decide the issue of title and possession in the present proceeding. In fact evidences are required to be recorded by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and only thereafter, right and title of the parties could be adjudicated. In that view of the matter, this court is inclined to give liberty to the petitioners to file a suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the appropriate relief. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that civil suit would be filed within a period of two months from today. If such a suit is filed by the petitioners within the time prescribed by this Court, then it will also be open for them to file a petition for injunction before the Civil court. If such a petition is filed within three months from the date of filing of civil suit, then the same must be disposed of within a period of six months in accordance with law. In view of claim and counter claim regarding possession over the lands in question, it is directed that till the matter of injunction is decided by the Civil court, the status quo as obtaining today shall be maintained by the parties. It is made clear that if the injunction petition is not filed by the petitioners in the proposed civil suit, then it will be construed that the order of status quo passed by this court stood rescinded. 6 With the aforesaid observations and directions the present application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Rahman/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)