IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.735 of 2010 1. PREM YADAV S/O LATE RAM PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL.- DHANIA BAGICHA, P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR-GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER TOWN TOWN BLOCK, GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 2 1.2.2010 Petitioner’s contention is that a public encroachment proceeding has been wrongly instituted against him. With reference to Annexure 4, the order sheet of the Encroachment Case no. 32/2006- 07, as pending before Circle Officer, Gaya, he points out that it has been mentioned that the petitioner has got a double storied house on New Plot no. 1240/ Old plot No. 108. Petitioner states that this is wrong. He had purchased land in plot no. 109, which now appertains to plot nos. 1135 and 1144. The house has been constructed there and is there for over 50 years. The land had been purchased over 60 years back by registered sale deed and the Zamabandi is also in the name of the petitioner’s ancestor. There is thus no question of any encroachment or proceeding. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that for the same relief petitioner had filed a writ petition earlier, which was dismissed for non prosecution. Petitioner has stated this position in the writ petition itself and has also stated that it appears the restoration application was also dismissed for non prosecution. In my view that makes a little difference inasmuch as in neither of the cases there was 2 any adjudication. This application is thus maintainable. In my view, the Circle Officer would be well advised to consider the matter seriously on all aspects. He may be reminded that the matter of encroachment and demolitions are matters which concern citizen and their properties. If the property has to be demolished , there must be some very good reason for the same and there must be no dispute in relation thereto. It is well settled that if the title to the land is in dispute then such matter can only be dealt with by the Civil Court and not in this summary proceeding. Similarly, before taking action, there must be proper survey of the area. Merely finding show cause to be unsatisfactory is an apology of a reason for ordering such a drastic action. That cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, I direct Circle Officer, Gaya to re-consider the entire matter in view of the observations, as made above, and after proper hearing and proper consideration in accordance with law , pass orders afresh. Till final orders are not passed, as indicated above, no further action would be taken pursuant to earlier order passed in this case for demolition of the premises of the petitioner. The application stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)