SMT.TRIPTI SEN GUPTA v. State Of Bihar & Ors.

7. Sri. Pradhan Ramesh Kumar, son of late-Pradhan Suryavarti Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Boring Canal Road, Shrikrishna Nagar, P.O.- Kidwaipuri P.S.-Buddha Colony, District-Patna.

8. Sri. Pradhan Sansar Sharan, son of not known resident of Mohalla- Boring Canal Road, Shrikrishna Nagar, P.O.-Kidwaipuri, P.S.-Budha Colony, District-Patna.

9. Smt. Bandhana Ptadhan, widow of Late Pradhan Dwarkanath, resident of Mohalla-Boring Canal Road, Shrikrishna Nagar, P.O.-Kidwaipuri, P.S.-Budha Colony, District-Patna.

10. Sri. Sanjit Kumar, son of Late-Pradhan Dwarka Nath, resident of Mohalla-Boring Canal Road, Shrikrishna Nagar, P.O.-Kidwaipuri, P.S.- Budha Colony, District-Patna.

11. Sri. Pradhan Jwala Prasad, son of late-Pradhan Suryavarti Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Boring Canal Road, Shrikrishna Nagar, P.O.- Kidwaipuri, P.S.-Budha Colony, District-Patna.

12. Sri. Pradhan Harishankar Prasad, son of late-Pradhan Suryavarti Prasad, Director of A.N.Sinha Institute, Patna, Mohalla-Boring Canal Road, Shri Krishna Nagar, P.O.-Kidwaipuri, P.S.-Buddha Colony, District-Patna. ----------- ……..Respondents.

32. 30.06.2009 It is indeed travesity that a simple matter of demarcation of plot has been pending for over two decades 2 out of which over one decade before this Court. To my mind, the controversy is simple. In Sri Krishna Nagar as is now known under Buddha Colony Police Station, Patna appertaining to Dugra, Khata No. 4, several plots of land were acquired by notification dated 31st of March, 1956 for the purposes of construction of housing colony which were all later transferred to the Bihar State Housing Board. In fact, there was series of acquisitions in that area. It is not in dispute as between the petitioner and the private Respondent that entire plot No. 1117 therein was acquired by the Housing Board. It is also not in dispute that the adjoining plot No. 1119 was not at all acquired. The limit of acquisition inter alia was the boundary between plot No. 1117 and Plot No. 1119. The petitioner and the case of the Housing Board is that having acquired the said land, Housing Board made plots therein and Plot No. L/3 was settled by the Housing Board with one Sri. Jamini Mohan Sengupta, the late husband of the petitioner. After settling that plot, there was allegedly a very small strip of land that was left within plot No. 1117. This strip of land was commonly referred to as “Chit Put” land by the Housing Board and as per their policy it could be settled with the adjoining adjacent settlee. It was so marked as Plot No. L/3- A and settled with petitioner. It is alleged that when the Housing Board went to deliver possession to the petitioner, it 3 was found that on small portion of this “Chit Put” land, the Respondent private parties were allegedly encroaching. This led to series of litigation for removal of encroachment etc and ultimately the matter is before this Court assailing the order dismissing the plea of encroachment etc. In my view, the only dispute is, what is and where is the demarcation line between Plot No. 1117 and 1119 because as between the petitioner, the Housing Board and the private Respondents, there is no dispute with the petitioner and private Respondents on plot No. 1117 and private Respondents have nothing to do with any part of Plot No. 1117 and similarly the Housing Board and the petitioner have nothing to do with any part of Plot No. 1119. That being the position, the simple question is to demarcate the boundary and if “Chit Put” land thus exists, hand over possession thereto the petitioner removing all encroachments. If no “Chit Put” land is left and the construction of private respondents is fully within plot No. 1119 then it is hard luck for the petitioner. This requires no legal determination, no legal issues are involved. The only thing that is involved is a field survey at the spot. In such a situation, to end this controversy once and for all, I direct the District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna who is even otherwise the competent authority, to resolve demarcation disputes, to immediately appoint survey 4 knowing Amin to survey the area and demarcate common boundary between plot Nos. 1119 and 1117. The appointment of said Amin would be duly informed to the Housing Board, the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 and 11 who would be deem to be representing the estate of late Pradhan Suryavarti Prasad to whom all private respondents are related. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna ensure that upon such appointment and communication of appointment, he would fix a date not later than fifteen days and such Amin along with such assistance as he may deem fit, visit the site for measurement. All parties would be present either personally or through their representatives and would cooperate with the said Amin in all possible manners for proper survey and measurement. The recordings as made by the said Amin would be then initialled by the parties and on basis of this reading the Amin would draw the site survey plan indicating the boundary and constructions thereon and file it before the Collector. If the findings show that any party is beyond the plot in which he claims possession, the Collector would initiate summary proceedings for vacating the encroachment and restore the plot to the rightful party. For example, if petitioner is found to be beyond plot No. 1117 to the extent he is in Plot No. 1119, claimed by the respondents, he shall be removed similarly vice-versa. As neither of the party claim anything 5 beyond the plots as noted above, none of the parties would have any objections to such an action being taken. All these proceedings must be concluded within a period of three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna who, it is expected would comply with orders of this Court in true letters and spirits. In fairness of the learned senior counsel for the private Respondent, I must take note of the fact that a supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 11 has been brought on record in which photo copy of notification and other documents have been annexed. I feel no necessity to refer to the said as none of those documents are in any controversy as noted above. Parties are also not at issue having their respective claim pertaining to their individual distinct plots. With these observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)