- (1.) AFTER the last order dated 12th of October 2012 in which I.A. No. 3152 of 2012 was pressed on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent Housing Board and the State officials have filed their respective affidavits.
(2.) I have heard the parties at length. The controversy in question can be narrowed down at the moment to the following facts. The petitioner was initially allotted 2000 sq. ft of Housing Board's land. Thereafter, he was allotted further 3399.48 sq. ft of land in same plot no. 261 of the Housing Board. The petitioner has annexed a map at page 70 to the writ petition. Housing Board in their counter affidavit and the State respondent have also annexed a map at page-65 in their reply to the I.A. The map shows the respective boundaries of the two plots on the northern, southern, eastern and western side. The present controversy seems to have arisen because the Housing Board have taken a stand that 852.54 sq. ft of land in plot no. 261 is beyond the area of 5399.48 sq. ft allotted to the petitioner and encroached by him out of the total area of 6254 sq. ft of plot no. 261. The map annexed to the latest affidavit of the Housing Board shows the shaded portion of the eastern boundary of the said plot which according to them, comprises 852.54 sq. ft of area. It appears from the submission of the parties that the State Highway is proceeding just next to the eastern side of the land of the Housing Board which was allotted to the petitioner. According to the counsel for the State respondent, construction of the State Highway to the extent of 99% has been completed and the premises of the petitioners is situated in the area adjoining the said road as described above between the chainage of 1.650 kms to 1.730 kms over the length of 80 meters between Adityapur - Kandra road, which is a portion of the State Highway no. 5 which belongs to the PWD.
(3.) FROM the submission of the parties, it appears that the controversy rests upon fixation or determination of the area of 5399.48 sq. ft allotted to the petitioners admittedly by the Housing Board on its plot no. 261. The earlier measurement undertaken does not seem to have resolved the controversy. In the circumstances, let the measurement be undertaken in presence of the Pleader Commissioner appointed by the learned District Judge, Seraikella- Kharsawan in the presence of Executive Engineer concerned of the Housing Board, Land Revenue Deputy Collector of the respondent State of Jharkhand of the concerned area and representative of the petitioner or the petitioners themselves.;