IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.214 of 2005 1. Smt. Chinta Devi, W/o Late Manoj Kumar. 2. Smt. Sweety Singh, W/o Late Rajeev Kumar. 3. Tejaswi Kumar, S/o Late Rajeev Kumar. 4. Tejasi Kumari, D/o Late Rajeev Kumar. Both under Guardinaship of their mother Smt. Sweety Singh. 5. Vijay Kumar Singh, S/o Late Randhir Kumar Singh. 6. Raj Kumar Singh, S/o Late Jyoti Kumar Singh. 7. Smt. Girish Devi, W/o Late Sidheshwar Prasad Singh. 8. Pawan Kumar, S/o Late Sidheswar Prasad Singh. All resident of village, P.O. and P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. 9. Rani Kumari, W/o Sri Shailesh Kumar Rai & D/o Late Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, R/o 648 Lodi Complex, New Delhi. 10. Vidya Kumari, W/o Late Upendra Kumar Singh and D/o Late Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Pattut, P.S.-Rani Talab, District- Patna. ……. Petitioners. Versus 1. Union Of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Delhi. 2. General Manager, Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur. 3. Divisional Manager, Eastern Central Railway, Danapur, Patna. 4. Station Manager, Eastern Railway, Bihta, Patna. 5. The Commandant, Railway Protection Force, Danapur, Patna. 6. Divisional Engineer-III, Eastern Central Railway, Danapur, Patna. 7. Path-way Inspector, Eastern Central Railway, Danapur, Patna. 8. The Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Danapur, Patna. 9. The State of Bihar through the Superintendent of Police, Patna. 10. The Officer-in-Charge, Bihta Police Station, Patna. 11. The Circle Officer, Bihta, Patna. ……. Respondents/Opposite Parties. For the petitioners : Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Advocate. For the Railway : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Purushtam Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok, S.C.-XIX ----------- 12. 10.12.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Union of India and its Railway Authorities as well as learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 20.09.2005 by which a Bench of this Court disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 11656 of 2004 and held that the land in question was acquired land and it is the Indian Railway, which can utilize the acquired 2 land and no document created by any person including the State of Bihar to show that anyone else is entitled to use the land, should be looked at and no one else should be permitted to use and utilize the land in question. It was further held that if the petitioner has encroached upon any part of that land, he is directed to remove such encroachment within a period of three months from the date of the order and in default, it shall be open to the railway authorities to take such steps as they may be advised in the circumstances. 3. Against the said order passed in the writ case, this civil review petition was filed by the writ petitioners in which the same Hon’ble Judge, who had passed the order in the writ case stayed the operation of the said order on 16.12.2005 directing that without express leave of the court, no demolition of the properties of the review petitioner shall be effected on the land in question. After completion of the pleadings, this case has now come before this court for final adjudication. 4. The property involved in this case is 94 decimals of Plot No. 393 appertaining to Khata No. 305 of Village Bihata within Bihta Circle Police Station in the District of Patna, which the petitioners claim to be their ancestral land for which Jamabandi had been prepared in their names, Register-II is standing in their names, Survey parcha was issued in their names, rent receipts are being issued in their names and proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. had been decided in their favour and they are in peaceful possession thereof. 5. Thus, the main question involved in the instant case 3 is whether the said land in question was the subject matter of acquisition in Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 1943-44 and whether the said Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 1943-44 and Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 1944-45 are different proceedings unconnected with each other or they are original and subsequent numbers of the same proceeding for the same land. The claim of the respective parties in this regard are in complete contradiction to each other. 6. When this case was heard on 24.09.2010, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities produced photo copies of the record which showed that at some places of the order sheet L.A. Case No. 9/1943-44 was mentioned and at some places L.A. Case No. 9/1944-45 was mentioned whereas at some other places L.A. Case No. 9/1947-48 was mentioned. Hence, they were directed to ask the District Magistrate, Patna, who is the custodian of the records to explain as to whether the aforesaid cases were different numbers of the same proceeding or they were separate proceedings. The District Magistrate was also directed to clearly state as to whether the aforesaid land was the subject matter of any of the aforesaid proceedings and whether it had been acquired or is still to be acquired. 7. Today, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Patna, which has executed by Additional District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna in which it had been specifically stated that the L.A. Case No. 9/1943-44, L.A. Case No. 9/1944-45, L.A. Case No. 9/1945-46, L.A. Case No. 9/1946-47 and L.A. Case 4 No. 9/1947-48 were all numbers of the same proceeding in which only the years were changed due to the change of calendar year. It has also been stated that the said proceeding was for payment of crop value and compensation for dismantled hut and the aforesaid land in question was never acquired nor it is sought to be acquired. 8. Learned counsel for the Union of India and Railway Authorities submits that the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Patna is vague and is not reliable as record of land acquisition case has not been produced. He further submits that authorities of the State Government has stated that they could not find out the records of L.A. Case No. 128/RF/1957-58 although it was necessary for ascertaining the matter of acquisition. He further submits that he has got possession letter with respect to the land in question, which is annexed to their counter affidavit. 9. From the entire claim of the Union of India and the Railway authorities, it is quite apparent that they had based their claims on L.A. Case No. 9/1943-44 stating that the said land had been acquired. However, the District Magistrate is the custodian of the records and a responsible officer of the State and when a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Patna executed by the Additional District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, who is the relevant authority that the land in question had never been acquired, there is no occasion for disbelieving the said authorities specially when the Union of India and Railway authorities have absolutely failed to substantiate their claims by any valid and reliable material. Even the possession letter annexed 5 with their counter affidavit is not of the Railway Department rather it concerned the Aviation Ministry. There is also nothing to show that L.A. Case No. 128/RF/1957-58 had anything to do with the acquisition of the land in question. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite apparent that the very basis of order dated 20.09.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11656 of 2004, which is the subject matter of this review petition namely acquisition of the above mentioned land in question is clearly proved to be non-existent and hence there is an error apparent in the order sought to be reviewed, which is obvious from the materials brought on record in this review petition regarding which there cannot be two opinions. 11. Thus, this review petition is allowed and the aforesaid order under review is recalled and the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents authorities that they shall not disturb the possession of petitioner over the land in question nor shall demolish any construction thereupon until the matter is decided in Title Suit No. 138 of 2004 pending before Sub-ordinate Judge-III, Danapur, Patna which has been filed by the petitioner against the authorities for declaration of title and other ancillary reliefs as the respondents were threatening demolition etc. The said suit shall be decided by the trial court on its own merits in accordance with the pleadings and evidence of the parties without being influenced by this order. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)