IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15168 of 2001 1. GANOUR DAS, SON OF SAKHI LAL DAS 2. BALESHWAR DAS, SON OF GONOUR DAS RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-KHAGRA, POLICE STATION TOWN AND DISTRICT-KISHANGANJ. ....................... PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, KISHANGANJ. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, KISHANGANJ. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KISHANGANJ MUNICIPALITY, KISHANGANJ. 7. THE KISHANGANJ MUNICIPALITY THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. ........................ RESPONDENTS ----------- 3. 9.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. Despite service of notice on Kishanganj Municipality, respondent no.7 or its Executive Officer, Respondent no.6, they have not chosen to appear. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ application seems to be only with regard to being dispossessed from the portion of the house in question which according to him is sought to be demolished by the authorities of Kishanganj Municipality. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the house in question was constructed in the year 1949 on the raiyati land of the petitioners while it was not 2 even included in the municipal area. He would further submit that there was no existence of a road much less a public road on the land of the petitioners and as such, subsequently after creation of the Municipality and in the recent time in the year 2000-2001 when the Municipality had even proposed to construct road by using the land of the petitioner or demolishing the house of the petitioner, a proceeding had to be initiated for acquisition of the land of the petitioner as also demolition of the house of the petitioners. He would submit that no such recourse was taken by the Municipality and when all of a sudden the action was sought to be taken for demolition of the house, the petitioners were constrained to file this writ application wherein this Court by an order dated 5.3.2002 while issuing notice to the Municipality had restrained the authorities from demolishing any portion of existing construction of the house of the petitioners. In absence of any counter affidavit filed by the respondents, particularly respondents no. 6 and 7, it would be very 3 difficult for this Court to come to any conclusion. If the assertion of the petitioners is correct that the house was constructed in the year 1949 at a point of time when village in question of the petitioners was not included in Kishanganj Municipality, there was no need for sanction of plan but if on the evidence to be adduced by the authorities it can be established that the house of the petitioner was constructed after the village was included in the municipal area, the Municipality can definitely take recourse to demolition of the house if the same was construction without sanction of plan and approval of municipality. Similarly whether the land in question of the petitioner being claimed by the petitioners is a public land as shown in the Khatiyan or other revenue records can again be gone into in a fact finding enquiry. As the petitioners have got a substantial relief for a period of more than seven years by getting the proceeding of demolition stayed, this Court would direct such interim order to continue for a further period of six months from the date of 4 receipt/production of a copy of this order in which period the Kishanganj Municipality is directed to decide as to whether the house of the petitioners or portion thereof is on public land or construction of the road is being made on a public land and demolition is sought to be made only on that portion of the house of the petitioners standing on the public land. Counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Executive Officer of Kishanganj Municipality who must initiate a proceeding against the petitioners and pass final order in accordance with law within the aforementioned period of six months. It goes without saying that in the event it is found that no portion of the house of the petitioners is on public land and the same is required for widening of the road, the Municipality can still use it for the purposes of road but only after acquiring such land in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. 5 Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Addl. Advocate General No.III and be also sent to the Executive Officer of Kishanganj Municipality. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/