IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.961 of 2007 KAMLESHWARI PASWAN @ KHAGARI PASWAN @ KAMLESHARI PASWAN SON OF LATE DHORHAI PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAIDA BABHANGAWA, P.S. & ANCHAL BARAUNI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI ……… APPELLANT Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI 3. THE ADDL.COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BARAUNI (BEGUSARAI) 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BEGUSARAI 6. RAM PUKARI DEVI SO CALLED WIFE OF RAMDEV SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAIDA BABHANGAMA, P.S. & ANCHAL- BARAUNI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 24/02/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no.6. The facts giving rise to this litigation need to be noticed only in brief. Respondent no.6 filed writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No.3317 of 2004 describing herself as a hapless woman living in a village in the district of Begusarai. She claimed that her husband works in Assam and both her children are dead. She alleged that taking advantage of her weakness, some people belonging to the extremist group, MCC, had trespassed over her land and her house in the village. That writ petition was disposed of on 22.5.2006 with an - 2 - observation that the writ petitioner should agitate her grievances before the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai. This Court expressed its confidence that the officers entrusted with the task of maintaining law and order and protecting the legal rights of individual citizens would look into her grievance and do the needful. Final decision on the representation was to be taken within two months. According to the appellant, he has valid title over the land concerned and was in possession over the same by constructing house, but only on receipt of information from the District Magistrate, Begusarai and on being asked to report back, the Anchal Adhikari, Barauni treated the appellant and some others as encroachers upon the land of respondent no.6 and got the encroachment removed by demolition of 45 houses constructed over that land and sent compliance report to the higher authorities that action was taken as per law in view of the order of the High Court. From the materials on record, it is clear that respondent no.6 had preferred - 3 - C.W.J.C.No.3317 of 2004 seeking protection from the encroachments upon her land by extremist elements. Pursuant to the observations and directions of this Court, respondent no.6 filed a representation and consequently, the local authorities on being satisfied that the lands of respondent no.6 were encroached upon, removed the encroachment. The appellant has challenged the bonafide and correctness of the action of the respondent authorities. According to the appellant, he has valid title over the land and in any case his possession should have been respected on account of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. According to him, even if the authorities found that the appellant’s possession was that of an encroacher, only a direction should have been given to respondent no.6 to file a suit for removal of encroachment from her land. The appellant has prayed for a direction to restore possession in his favour and to impose burden of compensation and cost upon the respondents, particularly, the authorities, who removed the encroachments. On going through the earlier order of - 4 - this Court and the materials on record, this Court is of the view that it would not be just and proper to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of one party or the other in the facts noticed above. Now when admittedly appellant has been thrown out of possession, he is expected to establish his claim of title and possession over the land. For that, liberty is granted to the appellant that if so advised, he may approach the civil court to show that he was not an encroacher and had not, along with others, taken forceful possession as an extremist element rather he has valid title and bonafide possession over the land. He will also be entitled to claim for compensation etc. in such a suit. With this liberty, this appeal is dismissed. Pradeep/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (J. N. Singh, J.)