SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for restraining the respondents from illegally interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of land situated at Mouza No. 166, Khata No. 19, Plot No. 1692 at Govindpur, Dhanbad and for a direction restraining the respondents from taking coercive step, dispossessing the petitioner from the property in question.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts disclosed in the writ petition are summarised hereunder; The petitioner claims to have purchased a piece of land vide Sale Deed No. 2174/1908 dated 14.02.2011 from Motilal Parmanik, Subodh Chandra Bhandari, Smt. Monika Devi, Kartik Parmanik, Smt. Renuka Devi and Konika Devi. The land situated at Mouza No. 166, Khata No. 19, Plot No. 1692 admeasuring 4.3 decimal at Govindpur, Dhanbad was recorded in the name of the one Sharda Napit and Dhiru Napit in the Cadastral Survey Record of Right and till 2011, rent receipt was issued in the name of Dhiru Napit. The said Dhiru Napit and Sharda Napit surrendered their interest with respect to land appertaining to Plot Nos. 1537, 1538 and 1691 through Deed of Surrender No. 3253 dated 21.09.1934, in favour of Raja Thakur Chandra Mohatri Singh, who transferred his right, title and interest in favour of Banglu Charan Dutta through Deed No. 3273 dated 24.09.1934. The vendors of the petitioner filed a case for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the property in question, which is the scheduled property in Sale Deed dated 14.02.2011. The case was registered as Title Suit No. 192/200102, which was decreed vide order dated 24.08.2004 by the SubJudgeIV, Dhanbad. Thereafter, Execution Case No. 3/19/200607 was filed by the vendors of the petitioner for issuance of writ of delivery of possession of the decretal land. The report submitted by the Nazir in the Execution Case discloses that the delivery of possession of the decretal land was handed over to the decreeholders on 23.01.2011 and thereafter, vide Sale Deed dated 14.02.2001, the land in question was transferred by a registered sale deed to the petitioner. On 06.11.2014, one Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, District Education Officer visited the premises of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises informing the petitioner that the said land was already acquired by the government. The petitioner was informed that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has passed an order, and in compliance thereof, the District Education Officer directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. The respondent no.2Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad without issuing any showcause notice and without following due process of law threatened the petitioner to evict him from the land in question with the help of police force. The petitioner obtained the document of the Land Acquisition Case No. 04/195455, which discloses that Plot No. 1692 was not the subject matter in the acquisition proceeding and even the name of the owner of Plot No. 1692 has been wrongly mentioned. The petitioner has purchased the land in question from the legal heirs of the recorded tenant. The land in question was never acquired nor any notice was issued to the recorded tenant and even the compensation has not been paid to the recorded tenant or any other person.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 stating that the land in question at Mouza No. 166, Khata No. 19, Plot No. 1692 at Govindpur, Dhanbad was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No.04/195455 for the purpose of construction of Basic Training School at Dhanbad. The acquisition proceeding was published in gazette by the State of Bihar. The total area acquired was 7.04 acres including the land in question for which, compensation was paid to the land owners. Vide Gazette Notification No. 654 dated 01.02.1954, the acquisition was notified in the Bihar Gazette (Part II) dated 10.02.1954 at page21. The total area of Plot No. 1692 is 5 Decimal only. W ith respect to Plot No. 1692, compensation has been paid to one Banglu Charan Dutta on 31.01.1956. In Title Suit No.192 of 2001, the actual owner of Plot No. 1692 was not a party nor the State was a contesting party. The revenue record discloses that the name of Banglu Charan Dutta is recorded in Khatiyan. It is denied that no proceeding was initiated rather, the Deputy Commissioner and the competent authority issued several notices for eviction of the petitioner. Measurement of the land in question was taken in presence of the Magistrate and in presence of the petitioner and after following due process of law, the petitioner has been evicted. The petitioner and other persons illegally encroached upon the land of the school and therefore, the school could not be fully constructed, even after lapse of more than 60 years. It is disputed that the Motilal Parmanik is the actual land owner, who has allegedly executed the sale deed with respect to land in Plot No. 1692, in favour of the petitioner. In view of letters dated 24.05.2013 and 25.06.2013 of the Area Education Officer, Govindpur, which indicate that the land of the school has been encroached by the antisocial elements and a news report was also published in the daily newspaper. In the aforesaid facts, a detailed enquiry report was prepared on the direction of Deputy Commissioner dated 10.07.2013 and a proceeding under the Public Land Encroachment Act was initiated vide Land Encroachment Case No. 15/ 201314. On 17.07.2013, notices were issued to the petitioner however, he refused to accept the same and therefore, it was affixed on 20.08.2013 on the building constructed on the encroached land thereafter, final order was passed on 30.09.2014 and the Magistrate was deputed for removing the encroachment. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;