IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16599 of 2009 NARSINGH PATHAK, S/O LATE RAMANAND PATHAK, R/O VILL- SURAHIYA, P.S- BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN (BIHAR) ……………PETIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/THE COLLECTOR SIWAN (BIHAR). 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/THE COLLECTOR, DISTT- SIWAN (BIHAR). 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT- SIWAN. (BIHAR) 4. THE S.D.O., SIWAN. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BLOCK BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN. 6. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, P.S-BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN (BIHAR). 7. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, NAWALPUR, P.S- BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN (BIHAR). 8. IMTAZ MIYA, S/O LATE AAIZUL MIYA, R/O VILL- SURHIYA, P.S-BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN 9. MANZOOR MIYA S/O LATE AAIZUL MIYA R/O VILL- SURHIYA, P.S-BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN 10. GUNJA MIYA S/O LATE AAIZUL MIYA, R/O VILL- SURHIYA, P.S-BARHARIYA, DISTT-SIWAN 11. FIROJ MIYA S/O IMTAJ MIYA R/O VILL- SURHIYA, P.S- BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN 12. MUNNA MIYA S/O IMTAZ MIYA R/O VILL- SURHIYA, P.S- BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN 13. NURUDIN MIYA S/O ANWAR MIYA R/O VILL-SURHIYA, P.S-BARHARIYA, DISTT-SIWAN 14. MD. AALAM S/O MUMTAZ MIYA R/O VILL- SURHIYA, P.S-BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN 15. NOOR AALAM S/O MUMTAZ MIYA R/O VILL-SURHIYA, P.S-BARHARIYA, DISTT-SIWAN 16. IRSHAD MIYA S/O MUMTAZ MIYA R/O VILL- SURHIYA, P.S-BARHARIYA, DISTT- SIWAN……….RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Prem Sheela Pandey, Advocate. For respondent nos.1 to 7 : Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar, G.P.16 ----------- 02/ 21.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its authorities (respondent nos.1 to 7). So 2 far private respondent nos.8 to 16 are concerned, they are not necessary to be noticed in view of the nature of order which is going to be passed. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to remove encroachments on the road on Khata Nos.157 and 153 and also to remove the poultry farm made by respondent nos.8 to 16 in front of the house of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that for the said Khatas there was Title Suit No.261 of 1995 between the petitioner, who was plaintiff, and one Ainul Mian & others and finally the said suit was decreed on compromise by Munsif, 1st, Siwan vide decree dated 12.12.1997. According to the said compromise, a road was left between the said land for the purposes of the litigants which started from the main road. Now it is claimed that the said compromise decree is violated and the said land left by the parties in the compromise decree as a Rasta has been encroached. Considering the materials on record as well as the averments made by learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the Rasta left by the parties was not a public land as per its definition in accordance with law, rather it is a private Rasta for convenience of the parties to the suit. In the said circumstances, the dispute is merely with respect to violation of the compromise decree. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw 3 this writ petition in order to file an appropriate application before the Civil Court mentioned above for appropriate order with respect to decree dated 12.12.1997 passed in Title Suit No.261 of 1995 and also for execution of the said decree clearing the Rasta left by the parties. If an appropriate order is passed by the Civil Court, the authorities concerned including the police and administration must help the petitioner in giving effect to the orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )