JHARU NAPIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned J.C. to the Standing Counsel No. 1 for the State -Recpondents.

(2.) THIS is a transferred matter from Patna and it appears that the private respondent No. 5 against whom the petitioner has made serious allegations had already appeared at Patna before the Patna High Court through his advocate and he has also filed a counter affidavit.

(3.) THE case of the Petitioner is that, his father Gopal Napit was given/settled two decimals of land - on Plot No. 1469, JB No. 24/2883 -Ja within Mouza Hirna by the then Ghatwal of the Rohini Estate in the year 1950. Consequently the Petitioner 'sfather built a "kuchcha" house in the year 1950 and started living on that plot and also started his family business. According to the Petitioner, he was in peaceful possession of the area for about 7/8 years when a proceeding under the Public Land Encroachment Act was initiated by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Deoghar being PLE Case No. 7 of 1957 -58. This, according to the petitioner, was instituted against the elder brother of the Petitioner, namely, Panchu Napit. After perusing the reports of the Kanungo and holding local inspection, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Deoghar came to a conclusion by his order dated 19.11.1963 (Annexure 2), that there was no encroachment and accordingly dropped the proceeding. Thereafter all was well till the respondent No. 5 purchased a piece of land just behind the petitioner 'shouse and constructed a "pucca" house. Thereafter, he started disturbing the peace of the Petitioner with the intention to have a free frontage on the road. It is further stated that in order to achieve this, the respondent No. 5 filed a petition under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, on 13.01.1987 and the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the same to the Executive Engineer (Roads). In the meantime the Sub - Divisional Officer, Deoghar also received a complaint in relation to encroachment and as a result thereof. Land Encroachment Case No. 8 of 1989 -90 was initiated in which the Anchal Amin was also directed to send his report. However, according to the petitioner, neither did the Executive Engineer submit any report to the Deputy Commissioner nor did the Anchal Amin file any report before the Sub -Divisional Officer. At paragraph 12. the petitioner has stated that upon a petition of the respondent No. 5, the Sub - Divisional Officer directed/entrusted one Vishwanath Pandit to take measurement of the lands, and the said Vishwanath Pandit, it the absence of the petitioner, inspected and measured the land and submitted a "false/bogus" report in connivance with the respondent No. 5 whereafter the Sub - Divisional Officer passed an order of eviction on 02.09.1992 in L.E. Case No. 8 of 1989 -90.