IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7450 of 2005 Anwar Sah, s/o late Raja Sah, resident of village – Churaman Chak – Bhatwalia, P.S. Fulwaria, District Gopalganj …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra 3. The Collector, Gopalganj 4. The Circle Officer, Fulwaria Bolck, Gopalgan 5. Maulana Islam S/o Dilsher, R/o village – Kazipur, P.S. Fulwaria, District Gopalganj 6. Shami Ahmad s/o Alisher 7. Nek Mohamad s/o Khaki Sah Both R/o village – Churaman Chak – Bhatwalia, P.S. Phulwaria, District Gopalganj …. Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, AC to AAG 14 ---------- 6 23.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Misc. Rev. No. 44 of 2001-2002 as contained in Annexure 4, whereby according to the writ petitioner he has directed the respondent no. 3 to construct the hall over the land of graveyard and for further direction 2 to the respondents to remove the construction. The claim of the petitioner is that the concerned plot nos. 500, 501, 502 and 503 appertaining to khata no. 118 of village Churaman Chak, Bhatwalia, P.S. Fulwaria, Gopalganj have been recorded in the survey record of right as Giarmajarua Aam and was being used as a graveyard. A dispute arose up when certain construction was being made over the graveyard by the private respondents and a report to that effect was submitted by the respondent no. 4, the Circle Officer, Fulwaria before the Collector, Gopalganj. Accordingly, a decision has been taken by the Collector holding that from the report of the Circle Officer it appears that upon disputed land a mosque exists and the other portion of land is used as graveyard and, thus, none of the parties have a right and title thereupon. It has also been stated that, since it is being used as a graveyard, in future also it could be used as such only. Construction upon it would not be appropriate. Accordingly, the Circle Officer has been directed to remove the illegal 3 encroachment and he has further been directed to assure that the graveyard is used only for concerned purpose. However, the order was challenged before the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra by the private respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Commissioner has directed to construct a hall for keeping janaza before the burial of the dead body. It is contended that lands should only be allowed to be used for burial of the dead body and for no other purpose. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that it appears from the order of the Commissioner that the Collector’s order has been affirmed and, therefore, it is surprising how the petitioner is aggrieved by the order. From perusal of the order it appears that the Commissioner has agreed with the order of the Collector that the plots concerned are to be used as graveyard and had further directed that it should be encircled by a boundary wall to prevent any further encroachment by any one. 4 I find force in the submission made on behalf of the State. I do not find from the order that there has been any direction for constructing any hall as has been stated in the writ petition. However, a direction has been made to consider as to whether, in place of demolishing the semi constructed small hall, the same could be utilised for keeping janaja before the burial of the dead body. By the order of the Commissioner, it does not appear that any right of private property or third party has been created or extinguished. In above view of the matter, I do not find any reason for interference in the impugned order concerned. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)