IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5180 of 2010 1. Tirveni Devi Kedia W/O Late Ghashi Ram Kedia R/O Mashraf Bazar (Lal Bagh) Gullowara, Darbhanga, P.S.- Darbhanga, Distt.- Darbhanga Versus 1. Chairman, Darbhanga Municipal Corporation, Darbhanga 2. Vice Chairman Darbhanga Municipal Corporation, Darbhanga 3. Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Darbhanga ----------- 4 06.09.2011 Heard Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vindhyachal Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Darbhanga Municipal Corporation. The writ petition was filed questioning the notice dated 10.03.2010 issued by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Municipal Corporation as contained in Annexure-6 whereby the petitioner and some others were directed to remove their encroachments on a land belonging to the respondent-Corporation. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 14 of the said notice and thereby he has been directed to remove the encroachment from the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the portion over which the respondent- Corporation is alleging encroachment by the petitioner, in fact was purchased by the father-in-law of the petitioner and transferred in favour of the petitioner by a deed of Ladavi executed as back as in the year 1937. It is contended that the respondent- Corporation did initially give an option to the father in law, for exchange of the said plot which was bearing no. 420 at the relevant time by another plot and to which the father-in-law of the petitioner had accepted but in absence of any alternative plot being offered by the Corporation, the offer did not materialize. It is admitted that the septic tank of the petitioner is situated over the plot in dispute and the 2 Corporation has asked for its vacation. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent- Corporation and in which it has been admitted that an alternative plot was offered to the petitioner and against which option they had chosen plot No. 419 of Block 6. It is next contended that the petitioner owns municipal plot Nos. 16342, 16351, 16352 and 16353 of which the new plot number is 758 under revisional Khata No. 648 and which fact is also manifest from the certified copy of the survey khatiyan placed at Annexure-4 of the writ petition. It is next stated that the petitioner is not in possession over the Municipal Plot No. 16340. It is the stand of the Municipal Corporation that the plots of the petitioner bearing Survey Plot No. 758 is adjacent West of the land in question and which bear revisional Survey Plot No. 757. It is the stand of the Corporation that under the map of the Corporation, a 20 ft. wide lane is being made over the said Plot No. 757 and which is being objected to by the present writ petitioner. Be that as it may, as the issue raised by the writ petitioner involves disputed issues of fact, this Court without entering into such disputed issues and without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions, disposes of the writ petition, reserving liberty for the petitioner to raise his grievance before an appropriate civil court of competent jurisdiction by filing an appropriate application. The interim order passed on 15.07.2011 by this Court shall stand vacated. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)