CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8690 OF 1993 --------------- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India ---------------- 1. PRADIP YADAV , son of Late Sone Lall Yadav, resident of Barnasia, P.S and District Katihar 2. Smt. Mania Devi, wife of late Sonelall Yadav, resident of Barmasia P.S. and District- Katihar ------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Katihar 3. The Circle Officer, Katihar 4. The Executive Officer, Katihar Municipality -------Respondents --------- For The Petitioners: MR. RATNESH NANDAN SINHA, Advocate For The Respondent: Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, AC to GP13 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD ---------------- Shiva Kirti Singh & C. M. Prasad, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. It appears that while public and Katihar Municipality is claiming particular land which is subject matter of dispute to be a public land over which a public road exists but the petitioners have challenged orders passed by Collector, Katihar as well as original order passed by Circle Officer, Katihar in Land Encroachment cases whereby they have ordered for removal of alleged encroachment by the writ petitioners over the land in 2 question appertaining to Khata No. 1102 and part of Khesra No. 904 of Ward No. 1 Katihar Municipality. Defence of the petitioners is that before the proceedings were commenced for removal of alleged encroachment they had already preferred Title Suit No. 94/90 against Commissioner of Katihar Municipality and obtained ex-parte judgement and decree dated 24-4-93 contained in annexure-3. It appears from the judgement of the Civil Court contained in annexure-3 that the suit had been decreed in respect of part of plot No. 904 only and on the north boundary of the said plot there is admittedly a public road. In the facts of the case, it is just and proper to direct the concerned respondents to effect the order for removal of encroachment only to the extent that it does not violate the judgement and decree of the Civil Court. We have noted the fact, as submitted by learned counsel for the State, that against the said ex-parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 94/90 by Munsif, Katihar a Miscellaneous case for setting aside that judgement and decree bearing No. 15/93 had been filed and at the relevant time when the appellate order was passed by the Collector, Katihar, the said case was pending. It goes without saying that if the decision in the suit is reversed or set aside, in that event, there will be no bar upon the powers of the respondent authorities in proceeding with the matter in accordance with law so as to remove the encroachment from public land, particularly, public Rasta over the public land in 3 question. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Patna High Court, The 5th March, 2010 BKS/-NAFR (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J.)