IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8124 of 2009 Shatrughan Tiwari, son of Late Jiwach Tiwari, village and PO Rampura, PS Singhwara, Dist. Darbhanga – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar. 2) Collector, Darbhanga. 3) Block Dev. Officer, Singhwara, Darbhanga. 4) Circle Officer, Singhwara, Darbhanga – Respondents. 4 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Stae. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the State authorities are prosecuting encroachment case for demolition of his house standing over khata no. 133, Khesra no. 594 in village Rampura, PS Singhwara, district Darbhanga. The ground on which the petitioner challenges the demolition is that according to him a measurement was made on 4.5.2009 and notice in the encroachment case was issued on 7.5.2009. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the measurement was not done in his presence and as such the encroachment is bad in law. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which it is stated that the encroachment case was instituted and notice was issued on 7.5.2009. The petitioner appeared on 14.5.09 and filed an application for time. The next date in the case was fixed on 27.5.2009. On 27.5.2009 the petitioner did not appear and, therefore, fresh notice was issued which he refused to accept. Nevertheless the petitioner suo moto appeared in the case and time was granted to him to file his objection. The record and documents were handed over to the son 2 of the petitioner and the next date was fixed on 11.6.09. The petitioner was directed to produce his evidence. However, on 11.6.09 the petitioner absented himself and did not appear. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this court should direct for a fresh measurement of the land on the basis of the judgment delivered in the case of Pancham Lal Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (1) PLJR 203. The facts in Pancham Lal’s case reveal that notice was not given to him and without taking any measurement, encroachment was removed by the municipality. This court under those circumstances ordered that competent Amin should be appointed and fresh measurement should take place in presence of the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner by his own conduct has divested himself of the right to a similar order as passed in the case of Pancham Lal. However, it is also a fact that the petitioner was not given any notice when measurement was taking place on 4.5.09. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner should not challenge this aspect of the matter, as the measurement was taking place in and around his house and as such he cannot claim that he had no knowledge. In reply counsel for the petitioner submits that the very fact that he did not have the knowledge that measurement took place on 4.5.09 would indicate that measurement is nothing but a piece of table work. It is difficult for this court to accept this submission as there is no evidence to substantiate this fact. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the facts 3 surrounding this case, this court cannot but observe that the removal of the so called encroachment by demolishing part of the petitioner’s house is indeed a very humiliating situation. If the demolition has rightly been done, because the fact that the petitioner had encroached on public land, this court cannot have any sympathy. However, this fact needs to be re-determined. I, therefore, direct that the Circle Officer should get measurement done in presence of the petitioner on 9.1.2012 by appointing an Amin. The petitioner would have the liberty to also bring his Amin who would jointly work with the State Amin. The petitioner is directed to a copy of this order before the Circle Officer, Singhwara within one month from the date of its receipt. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)