IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3696 of 2008 Virendra Kumar, son of Mohit Narayan Yadav, village Gopalpur Math, PS Masaurhi, District Patna – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The District Magistrate, Patna. 3) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi, Patna. 4) The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 5) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 6) The Officer Incharge, Masaurhi Police Station, Patna 7) Durga Prasad, son of Nathuni Prasad, village Gopalpur, Math, PS Masaurhi, District Patna – Respondents. 4 30.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 4 which is an order passed by respondent no.3, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi by which he has ordered that a Magistrate be appointed to remove the encroachment from plot no. 2371. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act was registered, nor was he heard in the matter. The notice that was issued was to show cause and to be present at the time of the measurement of the said land. On perusal of the records this court does not doubt that the procedure by which the encroachment was removed is not in accordance with law. The Sub-Divisional Officer after completing the measurement and receiving the report contained in Annexure 7/C to the counter affidavit ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and thereafter passed an order recording that there was an encroachment over the land concerned and then ordered for removal of the same. The petitioner’s case is that there were two brothers Nathuni Yadav and Sadhu Yadav. Durga Prasad, respondent no. 7 2 is the son of Nathuni Yadav. Sadhu Yadav died on 4.7.1969 leaving behind his wife Chhatia Devi and son Bhola Yadav. The wife and son of Sadhu Yadav executed a sale deed on 21.5.1974 in favour of the petitioner. The sale deed is enclosed as Annexure 1 and indicates that plot nos. 2372 and 2374 were the subject matter of the land that was sold. The petitioner admits the fact that his house stands on part of plot no.2371 but according to the petitioner the boundary in the sale deed would indicate that there has been a mistake at the time of execution of the sale deed by not including part of plot no. 2371. I would not like to pass any comment on the stand of the petitioner as he may chose to challenge this aspect in a competent court of laws. Going purely by the fact that the sale deed contains plot nos. 2372 and 2373, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner had encroached on plot no. 2371. The procedure adopted for removing the encroachment is not to be appreciated and this court finds that the then Subdivisional Officer has over stepped his jurisdiction by passing the order, dated 23.11.2007. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner’s boundary wall and drain pipe had extended to plot no. 2371, this court is not inclined to interfere in this matter by ordering restoration of the possession. This writ petition is, thus, dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)