IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1008 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7282 of 2006 ====================================================== 1. Geeta Devi W/O Late Raj Vaidya Krishna Mohan, R/O Personal Staff Quarter, Shyama Bagh, Darbhanga Town, P.S.-L.N.Mithila University, Distt.-Darbhanaga .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Darbhanga 3. The Circle Officer Darbhanga 4. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 5. Ajay Kumar Pathak S/O Late Rajvaidya Krishna Mohan Pathak R/O Personal Staff Quarter Shyama Bagh, Darbhanga Towan, P.S.L.N.Mithila University, Distt.-Darbhanaga 6. Ashwini Kumar Pathak S/O Late Rajvaidya Krishna Mohan Pathak R/O Personal Staff Quarter Shyama Bagh, Darbhanga Towan, P.S. L.N. Mithila University, Distt.-Darbhanaga 7. Alok Kumar Pathak S/O Late Rajvaidya Krishna Mohan Pathak R/O Personal Staff Quarter Shyama Bagh, Darbhanga Town, P.S.L.N.Mithila University, Distt.-Darbhanaga 8. Vinita Kumari Pathak W/O Sri Manoj Kumar Pathak, D/O Late Rajvaidya Krishna Mohan Pathak R/O Mohalla-Puraniganj Munger, P.S.-Kashim Bazar, Distt. Munger 9. Aparajita Kumari Pathak W/O Vinit Mishra, D/O Late Rajvaidya Krishna Mohan Pathak, R/O Village-Barhiya, P.S.-Barhiya, Distt.- Lakhisarai 10. Vidya Kumari S/O Mrinal Kumar, D/O Late Rajvaidya Krishna Mohan Pathak R/O F- 3/18, Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-Rajendra Nagar, Distt.-Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Dr. K. N. Singh, Sr. Adv. With Mr. S. S. Patna High Court LPA No.1008 of 2011 (7) dt.08-09-2011 2 Sundaram, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar, A.C. to G.A. I. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 7 08-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 7282 of 2006 the successor in title and the legal representative of the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is about possession of the writ petitioner over the disputed premises. According to the Respondents- State Government and Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, the disputed property was acquired by the State Government in Land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 1977- 78 for the purpose of the said University. Pursuant to the acquisition, the property was vested in the State Government. The writ petitioner was sought to be evicted from the disputed property under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The order of eviction has been made by the Collector under the Act which was under challenge in the above writ petition. The learned single Judge had called for and perused the land acquisition papers and has noted the factum of land acquisition proceeding. In view of the land acquired by the State Government, the order made by the Collector has been affirmed. Therefore, the present Appeal. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant is the wife and legal representative Patna High Court LPA No.1008 of 2011 (7) dt.08-09-2011 3 of the writ petitioner. As early as in 1935, the property in question had been given to the father of the appellant by the then ruler by oral gift. The appellant is, therefore, absolute owner of the property. He has also submitted that in the land acquisition proceeding, if any, the writ petitioner was not noticed. The appellant is not aware of such notice. He has submitted that in view of the disputed question of fact the matter cannot be proceeded under the Act. We are unable to agree with Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha. Neither the writ petitioner; nor the appellant in the present matter has produced any evidence of transfer of the property to the predecessor in title of the writ petitioner or the appellant. There is no semblance of title in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the matter does not involve disputed fact of title. The Collector, in his order has referred to the acquisition proceedings. The writ petitioner was aware of the acquisition proceeding at least since 1996. Till the date neither the writ petitioner nor the appellant has challenged the acquisition proceedings. In view of the land acquisition proceeding and vesting of the disputed property in the State Government, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. BTiwary/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)