- (1.) Present petition has been preferred against the construction of a "Dharmshala" in plot No. 672 and the petitioner wants stay against the construction of the "Dharmshala" at the aforesaid premises on the ground that the land, in question, is a disputed land and the petitioner is in possession of the land, which was given by one Shri Kishun Shah.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is claiming to be a "Pujarin" at Babua-Buturua Nayak Dham, Ganjebari, District-Deoghar. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the plot No. 672, which was given by one Shri Kishun Shah to the forefathers of the petitioner and the respondents are constructing "Dharmshala" over the same.
(3.) When this Court raises a query that how the petitioner is claiming the right, title or interest upon plot No. 672, where, the construction of "Dharmshala" is going on, learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out para 4 of the petition and submitted that the aforesaid plot was given to the grand-father of the petitioner by "Bhudan". Thus, learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out how the land, in question, was given by Shri Kishun Shah. Thus, para 4 of the petition shows one thing and the arguments canvassed by learned Counsel for the petitioner is another. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to match para 4 with his arguments, but, he has maintained his argument that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the plot and moreover, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the construction of the "Dharmshala" is going on with brick made out of "Bangla Bhatti" and not of "Chimney Bhatti" and, therefore, the said construction may stop.;