IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7282 of 2006 RAJVAIDYA KRISHNA MOHAN PATHAK, SON OF LATE SURYA NARAYAN PATHAK, RESIDENT OF PERSONAL STAFF QUARTER, SHYAMABAGH, POLICE STATION- LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT AND TOWN- DARBHANGA. ….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA. 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 4. REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. .. RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: M/s. Bidhanesh Mishra and Tanuja Mishra, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar, AC to GA-I. ----------- 4. 18.05.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State who has produced photo copy of the records of Land Acquisition Case no. 11/77-78 so as to establish before this Court that the plot in question was acquired for the purpose of establishing Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University Darbhanga by initiating aforesaid Land Acquisition Case. Petitioner who also served as Rajyavaidya in the Darbhanga Raj disputes such assertion of the State counsel and submits that house in question was settled with his father-in-law in 1935 who earlier served Darbhanga Raj as Rajyavaidya and after his death 2 petitioner stepped into the shoes of his father-in-law. The claim of the petitioner was accepted by the Circle Officer under orders dated 30.04.2003, Annexure-6 passed in Encroachment Case No.04 of 2002. Against the order dated 30.04.2003, Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga filed Encroachment Appeal No. 26 of 2003- 2004 which was allowed under orders dated 03.05.2006, Annexure-9, against which this writ petition has been filed. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that proceeding for Land Acquisition may have been taken for acquiring the land/house in question but the Land Acquisition Authorities never took physical possession of the house in question as petitioner kept residing in the Staff quarter raised over the lands in question. Earlier father-in-law of the petitioner also resided in the same Staff quarter before his demise. It is submitted that unless possession is taken in the light of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land in question shall not vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. According to the counsel for the petitioner, after conclusion of the Land Acquisition 3 proceeding vide Case No. 11/77-78 only symbolic possession was taken on 12.01.1982 and as the physical possession of the land/house has not been taken, such symbolic possession, will not vest the land/house in question in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 854 paragraph-9, and submitted, with reference to the said judgment, that the authorities having not taken physical possession of the lands in question, soon after conclusion of the Land Acquisition Proceeding, should be stopped from proceeding to evict the petitioner by resorting to the provisions under the Public Land Encroachment Act. I regret not to accept such submission for the reason that the land/house in question was the personal property of the Maharaja Darbhanga which remained in his possession even after vesting of the estate (Raj) under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Maharaja Darbhanga having never executed any instrument in favour of the 4 petitioner transferring the ownership of the land/house in question in favour of the petitioner or his father-in-law the land/house continued to remain the property of Maharaja. Petitioner and his father-in-law occupied the land/house in lieu of the services rendered to the Darbhanga Raj. From the records produced before me, it is evident that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11.10.1976 was served on the executor of Darbhanga Raj, Sri L.K. Jha on 18.01.1977. The executor having received notice, never submitted any objection before the authorities vested with the power to consider whether the land in question has been settled with the petitioner or his father-in-law by the Maharaja earlier. The authorities while proceeding with the Land Acquisition Case proceeded on the basis that the land/house in question is the property of Maharaja and completed the Land Acquisition Proceeding. Symbolic possession of the land/house in question was taken by the land acquisition authorities on 07.01.1982. Notwithstanding the fact that symbolic possession of the land/house having been taken, petitioner continued to occupy the land/house all these years, he has not been put to any disadvantage by not 5 taking the actual physical possession of the land/house in question in the preceding years. The land/house having been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act has become public land after its acquisition, in my opinion, therefore, the Collector under the Public Land Encroachment Act as also the District Collector has the jurisdiction to proceed under the Land Encroachment Act. From the impugned order dated 03.05.2006 passed by the Collector, Darbhanga, it appears that having perused the record of the Land Acquisition Case Collector, Darbhanga concluded that the lands stood acquired in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Case as such I do not find any error in the order of the Collector. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Ibrar/- ( V. N. Sinha, J.)