IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17729 of 2009 1. SUDIST KANT PATHAK S/O MR. BIDYANATH PATHAK, PRESENTLY RESIDING OF VILL-SIBIPATTI, P.S RAJNAGAR, DISTT- MADHUBANI 2. CHANDRA KANT PATHAK S/O MR. BIDYANATH PATHAK PRESENTLY RESIDING OF VILL-SIBIPATTI, P.S RAJNAGAR, DISTT- MADHUBANI 3. SURYA KANT PATHAK S/O MR. BIDYANATH PATHAK, PRESENTLY REISIDING OF VILL- SIBIPATTI, P.S- RAJNAGAR, DITT- MADHUBANI 4. BISHWANATH PATHAK, R/O LATE YOGI PATHAK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL-SIBIPATTI, P.S- RAJNAGAR, DITT- MADHUBANI. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI. 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, RAJNAGAR, DISTT- MADHUBANI. ----------- 02 27.04.2010 The petitioners claimed that they have been in possession of a piece of land for generations through their ancestor one Yogi Pathak and others. They have challenged the notice issued by the Circle Officer whereby it has been directed that on proper measurement it was found that they are encroachers upon land of a government school and, as such, they vacate the same, failing which they would be forcefully evicted. In the writ petition, petitioners merely stated that the Khatiyan is in the name of the petitioners’ ancestor whose possession is duly recorded, without a proceeding being initiated, they cannot be asked to vacate the land. An intervention application on behalf of the intervenor and counter affidavit on behalf of the State have been filed which gives another story altogether. From the facts in the intervention application and the counter affidavit, the facts emerged that as far back as in 1967 a - 2 - land encroachment proceeding was initiated against the petitioners. Those proceedings ended in adverse orders against the petitioners, which attained finality and petitioner was directed to vacate the land. Faced with those proceedings, the challenge to which even before this Court failed petitioners then filed a suit. The suit was for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession. The suit was dismissed. Neither was any declaration made with respect to petitioners’ title nor confirmation of possession was done. Suit was also dismissed on the ground that no relief could be given as against final orders passed in encroachment proceeding. Petitioners preferred appeal and the title appeal was also dismissed. It is in those circumstances, the present notice has been issued, which is nothing but a follow up of earlier proceedings, which had attained finality. Regrettably, though petitioners were party to the said litigation, they have chosen not to mention those facts in the writ petition. The writ petition suffers from suppresio veri suggestio falsi and, as such, I am not inclined to entertain the same. The writ petition is dismissed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)