Md Sakil Vs. State of Jhakrhand and Ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/70428
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnMay-17-2016
AppellantMd Sakil
RespondentState of Jhakrhand and Ors
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi w. p. (c) no. 1515 of 2016 with w. p. (c) no. 1516 of 2016 with w. p. (c) no. 1527 of 2016 ­­­ baldev singh  ­­­ ­­­ petitioner (wpc 1515/2016) 1. birender kumar jaiswal 2. uttam kumar jaiswal ­­­ ­­­  petitioners (wpc 1516/2016) md. sakil  ­­­ ­­­ petitioner (wpc 1527/ 2016) vs. 1. the state of jharkhand 2. deputy commissioner, east singhbhum, jamshedpur 3. sub divisional officer, dhalbhum, east singhbhum 4. circle officer, jugsalai, east singhbhum 5. drm, south east railway, chakradharpur, west singhbhum 6. senior section engineer, ser, tatanagar, jamshedpur ­­­­­­ respondents ( in all cases) ….... coram: hon’ble mr. justice aparesh kumar singh …... for the petitioners : m/s. indrajit sinha, rahul gupta & jitendra  nath upadhyay for the state : mr. md. shadab bin haque j. c to g. p. i for the railways  : m/s. mahesh tewari  & varun prabhakar, advs. ….. 08/17.05.2016:  petitioners came before this court against the notices dated  10th   march,   2016   and   11th   march,   2016   issued   by   senior   section  engineer, land, south eastern railway, tatanagar asking them to vacate  the railway land alleged to be occupied unauthorizedly by 17th march,  2016.  2. on 19th march, 2016 the following order was passed while  granting time to the respondents to seek instructions  in the matters:  “learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in each of the   individual writ petitions, petitioners have been served with a   notice dated  10.03.2016 and  11.03.2016 issued  by  the senior   section   engineer,   land,   south   east   railway,   tatanagar   to   vacate the railway land alleged to be occupied unauthorizedly   by 17.03.2016.  2.     notice   is   completely   vague   and   does   not   contain   any   description   of   any   plot,   area,   etc,   therefore,   it   suffers   from   vagueness. individual petitioners have made their assertion in   the respective writ petitions about continuance over pieces of   land   since   long.  it   is   submitted   that   in   any   case,  no   proper   proceeding   has   been   initiated,   if   at   all   the   allegation   is   of  unauthorized   occupation   of   the   railway   land.   therefore,   petitioners have approached this court.  3.       learned counsel for the respondent railways seeks short  time to obtain instructions in the matters.  4.   accordingly, list the cases on 29.03.2016.  2.5.       till   then,   no   coercive   steps   be   taken   pursuant   to   the   impugned notices against individual petitioners, if not already  taken”.  3. the   matters   were   taken   up   after   few   adjournments   on  12th april,  2016 upon filing of counter  affidavit by the  railways.   the  order   dated   12th   april,   2016   is   also   being   reproduced   hereunder   for  better appreciation. a pleader commissioner, learned advocate of this  court was appointed, acceding to the proposal of the parties, to carry out  inspection of the area in question. “     in these individual matters, counter affidavit have already   been   filed   by   the   respondent   railways   taking   a   plea   that   petitioners   are   illegally   and   unauthorizedly   occupying   the   railway  land   which  is  coming  in   the   way  of   construction   of   rail over­bridge at jugsalai at tatanagar.  2.    petitioner in wpc no. 1515/2016 claims to be holding a plot   of land over  plot  no.  177/232  under  khata   no.  2 ward   no. 5   having an area of 0.512 decimal of notified area committee,  jamshedpur. he has constructed a shop and house and is doing   business from the said premises.  3.    petitioners in wpc no. 1516/2016 claim to be in possession   over plot no. 114 under khata no. 3, thana no. 1161 having an   area   of   12   katta   since   1982   and   doing   business   of   scrap   materials in the name of m/s king metals.  4.     petitioner in wpc no. 1527/2016 claims to be in possession   of an area of 30'x60' under khata no. 2 khesra no. 170 ward   no.   5   in   jamshedpur   notified  area   committee   and   running  motor garage since 1980.  5.     learned counsel for the respondent railways categorically   submits   by   relying   upon   railways   map   of   the   area   that   the   petitioners are encroaching within the demarcated area falling   within the boundary wall of railways property near lic gate. it   is   submitted   that   the   road   over­bridge   (rob)   is   part   of  modernization   development   programme   of   railways   at   tatanagar   and   its   adjoining   area   which   needs   removal   of   encroachment from the railways land. it is submitted that 77   out   of   80   such   encroachments   have   already   been   removed   except   three   petitioners   who   have   raised   an   objection   by   approaching this court.  6.       learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   railways   and   petitioners   both   make   a   proposal   that   the   area   in   question   clearly defined with all necessary description be inspected by   the   court   appointed   pleader   commissioner   through   survey   knowing amin in the presence of both the parties to find out,   whether there is an encroachment over railways land. parties   would abide by  the decision  of the court on  the  basis  of the   pleader commissioner's report and if it is found that there is   any encroachment over the railways land, the same would be   removed without any delay by the individual petitioners.  7.          having   regard   to   the   submissions   made   and   exigency   shown by the railways in the matter of construction of road   over­bridge which would benefit a large number of people, this   court   is   inclined   to   accede   to   the   proposal   of   the   parties.   accordingly, mr. rohit roy, learned  counsel  practicing in  this   court,   is   appointed   as   pleader   commissioner   to   carry   out   inspection of the area in question in the presence of both the   parties   with   the   help   of   survey   knowing  amin.   respondent   railway authorities would provide the entire description of the   land said to be under encroachment by the petitioners, to the  3. learned   pleader   commissioner   within   one   week   through   the   learned counsel for the railways mr. mahesh tiwari. thereafter,   circle   officer   of   the   concerned   jugsalai   block   /   competent   authority   having   revenue   jurisdiction   over   the   area,   would  provide services of survey knowing amin to the learned pleader   commissioner for carrying out inspection on the date and time  fixed   by   the   learned   pleader   commissioner   after   necessary   description of the land is provided by railways within a period   of   one   week,   as   aforesaid.   learned   pleader   commissioner  would inform the learned counsel for both the parties to ensure   presence of the parties on the date so fixed for carrying out such   inspection. fee of the leaned pleader commissioner would be   rs. 20,000/­ to be equally borne by railways and the petitioners.   each of three petitioners would share the 50% of the amount of   fee   equally   amongst   themselves.   pleader   commissioner's   fee  will be deposited on the next date fixed before this court. let  such   a   report   be   submitted   by   the   learned   pleader   commissioner   on   the   next   date   i.e.  03.05.2016.  the   railway   authorities   would   coordinate   with   the   circle   officer   of   the   revenue area / competent authority for providing the service of   survey knowing amin for inspection and measurement of the   area by the pleader commissioner.  8.          let   a   copy   of   the   order   be   handed   over   to   the   learned   pleader commissioner mr. rohit roy and learned counsel for   both   the   petitioners   and   railways   by   tomorrow.   all   the   authority concerned and the petitioners would cooperate with  the pleader commissioner in carrying out the inspection.  9.     interim order dated 19.03.2016 shall continue till the next   date”.4. learned   pleader   commissioner   submitted   his   report   on  3rd may, 2016.   the parties were allowed to obtain copies of the report  and   assist   the   court   thereafter.   the   extract   of   the   report   of   learned  pleader commissioner is also quoted hereunder for proper  appreciation. “  in presence of all the aforementioned persons, i commenced   physical inspection of the site.       firstly, anchal amin identified the disputed land with plot &   khata   nos.   the structures  of the petitioners  was  found  to  be   comprised within khat no. 3, plot no. 183 of mouza jugsalai as   per the revisional survey record of rights corresponding to new  plot no. 232/177 of khata no. 2 of the municipal survey record  of rights.      thereafter   i   inspected   the   respective   structures   of   the   petitioners.   petitioner  namely,  baldev  singh is said  to  be the   owner   of   several   small   structures   about   10­12   in   numbers   comprised within the aforesaid plot.   the same are being used   for   running   shops.   the   photographs   of   the   structures   of   the   petitioners namely baldev singh are enclosed with this report   and identified as  annexure­a     petitioners namely birendra kumar jaisal and uttam kumar   jaiswal are in possession of a big concrete structure situated on   the aforesaid from which they are operating their business.  the   said structure has also a big vacant area on the rear side where  some   commercial   activities   are   carried   out   by   the   said   petitioners,   though   there   are   no   concrete   structures.     the   photographs of the structures of the petitioner namely birendra   kumar jaiswal and uttam kumar jaiswal are enclosed with this   report and identified as  annexure­b    4. petitioner namely md. sakil is in possession of three shop   rooms  comprised  within  the aforesaid  plot, from   which  he is   running his business.  the photographs of the structures of the   petitioner namely md. sakil are enclosed with this report and   identified as  annexure­c    all the aforesaid structures are situated just beside the road   which   leads   to   tatanagar   railway   station.     behind   these  structures   there   is   a   old   dilapidated   wall   said   to   have   been   constructed   by   the   railways   in   order   to   prevent   humans   and   animals from straying into railway tracks.  the photographs of   the dilapidated boundary wall situated behind the structures of   the petitioners are enclosed with this report and identified as   annexure­d       the   officers   of   the   s.e.r   who   were   present   during   the   inspection claimed that s.e.r has acquired the land on which   the structures of the petitioners are situated.   they referred to   the   revisional   survey   recored   of   rights   and   the   survey  settlement map in support of their claim.  it transpires from the   revisional survey record of rights that the disputed plot i.e.   r.s plot no. 183 has been recorded in the name of south eastern   railway.  it was further claimed that the acquired land extends   beyond   the   land   in   occupation   of   the   petitioners   i.e.  till   the   road leading to railway station.   the anchal   amin measured   the   land   true   to   scale   by   referring   to   the   settlement   map   in   presence of all the parties.  it was found that the land acquired   by   s.e.r   is   between   145'   to   275'   from   the   railway   track   if   measured from the level crossing gate (wrongly referred as lic   gate   on   behalf   of   railway)   to   the   disputed   site.     distance   between the railway track and the dilapidated boundary wall   was measured between 75' to 80' by anchal amin.        i   further   found   that   save   and   except   the   dilapidated   boundary wall behind the structures of the petitioners, there is   no   other   physical   demarcation   that   the   land   belongs   to   the   railways.   there is only one pillar at some distance from the   structure   of  the   petitioners   which  has   been   marked  with   the  word “s.e.r.”.  save and except the said pillar, no other physical   demarcation   that   the   land   has   been   acquired   by   s.e.r.  was   fond.    photographs  of   the   disputed   site   take  from   across   the   road are enclosed with this report and identified as annexure­e the learned counsel for the petitioners produced some  maps   and   municipal   survey   record   of   rights   to   justify   his   clients claim over the disputed land asserting that the disputed   land is recorded as anabad bihar sarkar & possession of his   client is entered.  from the order datred 12.4.2016, i find that i   have   been   asked   to   carry   out   physical   inspection   of   the   disputed   land   on   basis   of   the   documents   produced   by   the   respondents with the assistance of anchal amin.   hence, i am   not referring to the documents produced by the counsel for the   petitioners.  on   physical   inspection   of   the   disputed   site/land  conducted   by   me   with   the   assistance   of   anchal   amin   in   presence   of   all   the   concerned   parties,   i   could   ascertain   as   under: ­ a.   the   structures   of   the   petitioners   are   comprised   within   revisional   survey   plot   no.   183 of khata no. 3, mouza jugsalai.  b. railway acquired the disputed land and an   entry in favour of south eastern railway has  been  recorded   w.r.t.  r.s. plot  no. 183  in  the   revisional survey record of rights published   in the year 1965 as provided to me on behalf   of the railways.  c. the extent of land acquired by the railway   is between 145' to 275' from the railway track   starting from level cross gate to disputed site   as measured by the anchal amin true to scale  5. with   reference   to   the   settlement   map   produced on behalf of the railways.  d. the structures of the petitioners fall within   the land recorded in favour of south eastern   railway   in   the   revisional   survey   record   of  rights published in the year 1965. e. there is one old dilapidated boundary wall   running   across   the   disputed   land   which   is   said   to   have   been   constructed   by   the  railways.  it is situated behind the structures   of   the   petitioners.   the   structures   of   the  petitioners   do   not   extend   beyond   this   boundary wall towards the railway track.  f.   save   and   except   the   said   dilapidated   boundary   wall,   there   is   no   other   physical   demarcation of the land identifying it to be  the land of the railways.  with   the   aforesaid   findings,   i   submit   this   report   to   the   hon'ble   court   along   with   the  photographs   mentioned   above,   taken   in   course of physical inspection, as well as field  book   and   documents   submitted   by   both   the  parties.”    5. learned   pleader   commissioner   has   carried   out   the  inspection of the piece of land based upon the revisional survey record  of rights prepared in the year 1965.  the anchal amin has identified the  disputed   land   and   the   structures   of   the   petitioners   were   comprised  within plot no. 183, khata no. 3 of mouza jugsalai as per the revisional  survey records of rights corresponding to new plot no. 232/177 of khata  no. 2 of the municipal survey record of rights.   plot no. 183 has been  found to be recorded in favour of south eastern railway in the revisional  survey record of rights published in the year 1965.   the extent of land  acquired by the railway is between 145' to 275' from the railway track  starting   from   level   cross   gate   to   disputed   site   as   measured   by   the  anchal amin. the structures fall within the land recorded in favour of  south   eastern   railway   in   the   revisional   survey   record   of   rights  published in the year 1965.6. petitioner in w. p. (c) no. 1515 of 2016 has contended that  plot no. 177/232 under khata no. 2, ward no. 5 having an area of 0.512  decimal   of   notified   area   committee,   jamshedpur   is   occupied   by   the  petitioner   over   which   he   is   carrying   on   business     since   1958.     this  petitioner through interlocutory application no. 2663 of 2016 has sought  6. to make correction in the area of plot as 12 decimal of land instead of  0.512. he submits that the municipal survey record of rights prepared in  the   year   1972   is   of   a   later   date   than   the   revisional   survey   record   of  rights prepared in 1965 relied upon by the railways which form the basis  of pleader commissioner's report.   7. counsel for the petitioner in w. p. (c) no. 1515 of 2016 has  referred to the order dated 12th april, 2016 where submissions made by  learned counsel for railway has been recorded which is to the extent that  demarcated area falls within the boundary wall of railways property near  lic gate.   in the  pleader  commissioner's report it has been stated that  the   structures   of   the   petitioners   fall   behind   the  dilapidated   boundary  wall except part of the structures of one of the petitioners which falls  within the area under dilapidated boundary wall.               it is not disputed by counsel for the said petitioner that the  disputed land even in the municipal survey records of rights is recorded  as   anabad bihar sarkar with the remarks as under illegal possession of  the petitioners.  8.           reliance   has   been   placed   by   the   petitioner   on   an   order   of  deputy   commissioner,   east   singhbhum,   jamshedpur   in   misc.   (p)   no.  73/1996­97 in the case of gurucharan singh vs.­  state & ors. under the  heading   of   demolition  matters,   to   submit   that   learned   deputy  commissioner   has   taken   into   account   that   the   said   khata   has   been  opened in the name of state of bihar and tisco limited is a lessee under  the state. deputy collector, tata lease and khasmahal, jamshedpur was  directed to get the spot inquired into and to take necessary action in the  matter within the stipulated period.   9. in that view of the matter, as per the counsel for petitioners the  respondent­ railway cannot be the rightful owner of the said piece of  land.  therefore, eviction of the petitioner from the land at the behest of  the railways based upon the pleader commissioner's  report would not  be justified in the eye of law.    7. however, none of petitioners have been able to show any  piece of document to justify their claim for ownership and title over the  piece of land in question. petitioners have not been able to show any  document establishing their right, title and ownership over the property  in question.   10. in the present matter, as per the order dated 12 april, 2016,  the disputed area in question said to be occupied by the petitioners, was  inspected   through   the   pleader   commissioner   on   the   proposal   of   the  parties with a purpose to ascertain whether the petitioners' structure are  falling within the railway land or not?   11. it is to be pertinent to note  that the  instant exercise was  undertaken to  ascertain whether petitioners' structures fall within the  railway land or not. existence of a dilapidated boundary is not of much  consequence.  the exercise undertaken has led to the conclusion that the  disputed   structures   held   by   the   petitioners   are   falling   within   the  revisional plot no. 183 under khata no. 3 mouza jugsalai as recorded in  the revisional survey record of rights published in the year 1965 and  entered  in favour of south eastern railway.   12.       even as per the assertion of the petitioner in w. p. (c) no. 1515 of  2106,   the   disputed   plot   as  per   the   municipal   survey   record   of   rights  prepared   after   1965   shows   the   land   as  anabad   bihar   sarkar  with   the  remarks   as   under   his   illegal   possession.   in   such   circumstances,   it   is  evident   that   petitioners   have   not   been   able   to   establish   any   claim   of  right,   title   and   ownership   of   the   property   in   question.   in   substance,  therefore   petitioners   are   unauthorized   occupants   of   the   piece   of   land  falling   within   the   railway   property   in   plot   no.   183   khata   no.   3   mauza  jugsalai as per the revisional survey record of rights published in 1965,  which is an unimpeachable document.  13.  in view of the discussions made hereinabove and the findings of  facts   ascertained   through   the   report   of   pleader   commissioner   which  have not been dislodged on any count by the petitioners, it can be safely  8. held  that the petitioners are illegal encroachers over the  railway land.  the   petitioners   despite   being   conscious   of   the   provisions   of   public  premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) act, 1971 had voluntarily  proposed  for   an   inspection   through   a   court   appointed   pleader  commissioner   to   ascertain   the   area   in   question   and   whether   it   falls  within  railway  land  or  not  and  to abide  by  the  decision  of this  court  based   on   the   pleader   commissioner's   report.     once   it   has   been  determined that they are illegal encroachers over the piece of land held  by the railways,   as per their undertaking, they are now bound to vacate  the land in question. as a result petitioners are required to vacate the  piece  of land within a period of 1 week from today, failing which the  respondents   railway   would   take   steps   for   removal   of   unauthorized  encroachments.   14. accordingly, these applications are dismissed. consequently i. a.  no. 2663 of 2016 in w. p. (c) no. 1515 of 2016 stands disposed of.            (aparesh kumar singh, j.) jk
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 1515 of 2016 with W. P. (C) No. 1516 of 2016 with W. P. (C) No. 1527 of 2016 ­­­ Baldev Singh  ­­­ ­­­ Petitioner (WPC 1515/2016) 1. Birender Kumar Jaiswal 2. Uttam Kumar Jaiswal ­­­ ­­­  Petitioners (WPC 1516/2016) Md. Sakil  ­­­ ­­­ Petitioner (WPC 1527/ 2016) Vs. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, East Singhbhum 4. Circle Officer, Jugsalai, East Singhbhum 5. DRM, South East Railway, Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum 6. Senior Section Engineer, SER, Tatanagar, Jamshedpur ­­­­­­ Respondents ( in all cases) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH …... For the Petitioners : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Rahul Gupta & Jitendra  Nath Upadhyay For the State : Mr. Md. Shadab bin haque J. C to G. P. I For the Railways  : M/s. Mahesh Tewari  & Varun Prabhakar, Advs. ….. 08/17.05.2016:  Petitioners came before this Court against the notices dated  10th   March,   2016   and   11th   March,   2016   issued   by   Senior   Section  Engineer, Land, South Eastern Railway, Tatanagar asking them to vacate  the Railway land alleged to be occupied unauthorizedly by 17th March,  2016.  2. On 19th March, 2016 the following order was passed while  granting time to the respondents to seek instructions  in the matters:  “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in each of the   individual writ petitions, petitioners have been served with a   notice dated  10.03.2016 and  11.03.2016 issued  by  the Senior   Section   Engineer,   Land,   South   East   Railway,   Tatanagar   to   vacate the Railway land alleged to be occupied unauthorizedly   by 17.03.2016.  2.     Notice   is   completely   vague   and   does   not   contain   any   description   of   any   plot,   area,   etc,   therefore,   it   suffers   from   vagueness. Individual petitioners have made their assertion in   the respective writ petitions about continuance over pieces of   land   since   long.  It   is   submitted   that   in   any   case,  no   proper   proceeding   has   been   initiated,   if   at   all   the   allegation   is   of  unauthorized   occupation   of   the   Railway   land.   Therefore,   petitioners have approached this Court.  3.       Learned counsel for the respondent Railways seeks short  time to obtain instructions in the matters.  4.   Accordingly, list the cases on 29.03.2016.  2.

5.       Till   then,   no   coercive   steps   be   taken   pursuant   to   the   impugned notices against individual petitioners, if not already  taken”.  3. The   matters   were   taken   up   after   few   adjournments   on  12th April,  2016 upon filing of counter  affidavit by the  Railways.   The  order   dated   12th   April,   2016   is   also   being   reproduced   hereunder   for  better appreciation. A Pleader Commissioner, learned Advocate of this  Court was appointed, acceding to the proposal of the parties, to carry out  inspection of the area in question. “     In these individual matters, counter affidavit have already   been   filed   by   the   respondent   Railways   taking   a   plea   that   petitioners   are   illegally   and   unauthorizedly   occupying   the   Railway  land   which  is  coming  in   the   way  of   construction   of   Rail Over­bridge at Jugsalai at Tatanagar.  2.    Petitioner in WPC No. 1515/2016 claims to be holding a plot   of land over  plot  no.  177/232  under  Khata   No.  2 Ward   No. 5   having an area of 0.512 decimal of Notified Area Committee,  Jamshedpur. He has constructed a shop and house and is doing   business from the said premises.  3.    Petitioners in WPC No. 1516/2016 claim to be in possession   over plot no. 114 under Khata no. 3, Thana No. 1161 having an   area   of   12   Katta   since   1982   and   doing   business   of   scrap   materials in the name of M/s King Metals.  4.     Petitioner in WPC No. 1527/2016 claims to be in possession   of an area of 30'x60' under Khata No. 2 Khesra No. 170 Ward   No.   5   in   Jamshedpur   Notified  Area   Committee   and   running  motor garage since 1980.  5.     Learned counsel for the respondent Railways categorically   submits   by   relying   upon   Railways   Map   of   the   area   that   the   petitioners are encroaching within the demarcated area falling   within the boundary wall of Railways property near LIC gate. It   is   submitted   that   the   Road   Over­bridge   (ROB)   is   part   of  modernization   development   programme   of   Railways   at   Tatanagar   and   its   adjoining   area   which   needs   removal   of   encroachment from the Railways land. It is submitted that 77   out   of   80   such   encroachments   have   already   been   removed   except   three   petitioners   who   have   raised   an   objection   by   approaching this Court.  6.       Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   Railways   and   petitioners   both   make   a   proposal   that   the   area   in   question   clearly defined with all necessary description be inspected by   the   Court   appointed   Pleader   Commissioner   through   Survey   knowing Amin in the presence of both the parties to find out,   whether there is an encroachment over Railways land. Parties   would abide by  the decision  of the Court on  the  basis  of the   Pleader Commissioner's report and if it is found that there is   any encroachment over the Railways land, the same would be   removed without any delay by the individual petitioners.  7.          Having   regard   to   the   submissions   made   and   exigency   shown by the Railways in the matter of construction of Road   Over­bridge which would benefit a large number of people, this   Court   is   inclined   to   accede   to   the   proposal   of   the   parties.   Accordingly, Mr. Rohit Roy, learned  counsel  practicing in  this   Court,   is   appointed   as   Pleader   Commissioner   to   carry   out   inspection of the area in question in the presence of both the   parties   with   the   help   of   Survey   knowing  Amin.   Respondent   Railway Authorities would provide the entire description of the   land said to be under encroachment by the petitioners, to the  3. learned   Pleader   Commissioner   within   one   week   through   the   learned counsel for the Railways Mr. Mahesh Tiwari. Thereafter,   Circle   Officer   of   the   concerned   Jugsalai   Block   /   competent   authority   having   revenue   jurisdiction   over   the   area,   would  provide services of Survey knowing Amin to the learned Pleader   Commissioner for carrying out inspection on the date and time  fixed   by   the   learned   Pleader   Commissioner   after   necessary   description of the land is provided by Railways within a period   of   one   week,   as   aforesaid.   Learned   Pleader   Commissioner  would inform the learned counsel for both the parties to ensure   presence of the parties on the date so fixed for carrying out such   inspection. Fee of the leaned Pleader Commissioner would be   Rs. 20,000/­ to be equally borne by Railways and the petitioners.   Each of three petitioners would share the 50% of the amount of   fee   equally   amongst   themselves.   Pleader   Commissioner's   fee  will be deposited on the next date fixed before this Court. Let  such   a   report   be   submitted   by   the   learned   Pleader   Commissioner   on   the   next   date   i.e.  03.05.2016.  The   Railway   authorities   would   coordinate   with   the   Circle   Officer   of   the   Revenue area / competent authority for providing the service of   Survey knowing Amin for inspection and measurement of the   area by the Pleader Commissioner.  8.          Let   a   copy   of   the   order   be   handed   over   to   the   learned   Pleader Commissioner Mr. Rohit Roy and learned counsel for   both   the   petitioners   and   Railways   by   tomorrow.   All   the   authority concerned and the petitioners would cooperate with  the Pleader Commissioner in carrying out the inspection.  9.     Interim order dated 19.03.2016 shall continue till the next   date”.

4. Learned   Pleader   Commissioner   submitted   his   report   on  3rd May, 2016.   The parties were allowed to obtain copies of the report  and   assist   the   Court   thereafter.   The   extract   of   the   report   of   learned  Pleader Commissioner is also quoted hereunder for proper  appreciation. “  In presence of all the aforementioned persons, I commenced   physical inspection of the site.       Firstly, Anchal Amin identified the disputed land with Plot &   Khata   Nos.   The structures  of the petitioners  was  found  to  be   comprised within Khat No. 3, Plot No. 183 of Mouza Jugsalai as   per the Revisional Survey Record of Rights corresponding to New  Plot No. 232/177 of Khata No. 2 of the Municipal Survey Record  of Rights.      Thereafter   I   inspected   the   respective   structures   of   the   petitioners.   Petitioner  namely,  Baldev  Singh is said  to  be the   owner   of   several   small   structures   about   10­12   in   numbers   comprised within the aforesaid plot.   The same are being used   for   running   shops.   The   photographs   of   the   structures   of   the   petitioners namely Baldev Singh are enclosed with this report   and identified as  Annexure­A     Petitioners namely Birendra Kumar Jaisal and Uttam Kumar   Jaiswal are in possession of a big concrete structure situated on   the aforesaid from which they are operating their business.  The   said structure has also a big vacant area on the rear side where  some   commercial   activities   are   carried   out   by   the   said   petitioners,   though   there   are   no   concrete   structures.     The   photographs of the structures of the petitioner namely Birendra   Kumar Jaiswal and Uttam Kumar Jaiswal are enclosed with this   report and identified as  Annexure­B    4. Petitioner namely Md. Sakil is in possession of three shop   rooms  comprised  within  the aforesaid  plot, from   which  he is   running his business.  The photographs of the structures of the   petitioner namely Md. Sakil are enclosed with this report and   identified as  Annexure­C    All the aforesaid structures are situated just beside the road   which   leads   to   Tatanagar   Railway   Station.     Behind   these  structures   there   is   a   old   dilapidated   wall   said   to   have   been   constructed   by   the   railways   in   order   to   prevent   humans   and   animals from straying into railway tracks.  The photographs of   the dilapidated boundary wall situated behind the structures of   the petitioners are enclosed with this report and identified as   Annexure­D       The   officers   of   the   S.E.R   who   were   present   during   the   inspection claimed that S.E.R has acquired the land on which   the structures of the petitioners are situated.   They referred to   the   Revisional   Survey   Recored   of   Rights   and   the   Survey  Settlement map in support of their claim.  It transpires from the   Revisional Survey Record of Rights that the disputed plot i.e.   R.S Plot no. 183 has been recorded in the name of South Eastern   Railway.  It was further claimed that the acquired land extends   beyond   the   land   in   occupation   of   the   petitioners   i.e.  till   the   road leading to railway station.   The Anchal   Amin measured   the   land   true   to   scale   by   referring   to   the   Settlement   Map   in   presence of all the parties.  It was found that the land acquired   by   S.E.R   is   between   145'   to   275'   from   the   railway   track   if   measured from the Level Crossing Gate (wrongly referred as LIC   Gate   on   behalf   of   Railway)   to   the   disputed   site.     Distance   between the Railway track and the dilapidated boundary wall   was measured between 75' to 80' by Anchal Amin.        I   further   found   that   save   and   except   the   dilapidated   boundary wall behind the structures of the petitioners, there is   no   other   physical   demarcation   that   the   land   belongs   to   the   railways.   There is only one pillar at some distance from the   structure   of  the   petitioners   which  has   been   marked  with   the  word “S.E.R.”.  Save and except the said pillar, no other physical   demarcation   that   the   land   has   been   acquired   by   S.E.R.  was   fond.    Photographs  of   the   disputed   site   take  from   across   the   road are enclosed with this report and identified as Annexure­E The learned counsel for the petitioners produced some  maps   and   Municipal   Survey   record   of   rights   to   justify   his   clients claim over the disputed land asserting that the disputed   land is recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar & possession of his   client is entered.  From the order datred 12.4.2016, I find that I   have   been   asked   to   carry   out   physical   inspection   of   the   disputed   land   on   basis   of   the   documents   produced   by   the   respondents with the assistance of Anchal Amin.   Hence, I am   not referring to the documents produced by the counsel for the   petitioners.  On   physical   inspection   of   the   disputed   site/land  conducted   by   me   with   the   assistance   of   Anchal   Amin   in   presence   of   all   the   concerned   parties,   I   could   ascertain   as   under: ­ a.   The   structures   of   the   petitioners   are   comprised   within   revisional   survey   plot   no.   183 of khata no. 3, mouza Jugsalai.  b. Railway acquired the disputed land and an   entry in favour of South Eastern Railway has  been  recorded   w.r.t.  R.S. Plot  No. 183  in  the   Revisional Survey Record of Rights published   in the year 1965 as provided to me on behalf   of the Railways.  c. The extent of land acquired by the railway   is between 145' to 275' from the railway track   starting from Level Cross Gate to disputed site   as measured by the Anchal Amin true to scale  5. with   reference   to   the   Settlement   Map   produced on behalf of the Railways.  d. The structures of the petitioners fall within   the land recorded in favour of South Eastern   Railway   in   the   Revisional   Survey   Record   of  Rights published in the year 1965. e. There is one old dilapidated boundary wall   running   across   the   disputed   land   which   is   said   to   have   been   constructed   by   the  Railways.  It is situated behind the structures   of   the   petitioners.   The   structures   of   the  petitioners   do   not   extend   beyond   this   boundary wall towards the railway track.  f.   Save   and   except   the   said   dilapidated   boundary   wall,   there   is   no   other   physical   demarcation of the land identifying it to be  the land of the Railways.  With   the   aforesaid   findings,   I   submit   this   report   to   the   Hon'ble   Court   along   with   the  photographs   mentioned   above,   taken   in   course of physical inspection, as well as Field  Book   and   documents   submitted   by   both   the  parties.”    5. Learned   Pleader   Commissioner   has   carried   out   the  inspection of the piece of land based upon the Revisional Survey Record  of Rights prepared in the year 1965.  The Anchal Amin has identified the  disputed   land   and   the   structures   of   the   petitioners   were   comprised  within Plot no. 183, Khata no. 3 of Mouza Jugsalai as per the Revisional  Survey Records of Rights corresponding to New Plot no. 232/177 of Khata  no. 2 of the Municipal Survey Record of Rights.   Plot no. 183 has been  found to be recorded in favour of South Eastern Railway in the Revisional  Survey Record of Rights published in the year 1965.   The extent of land  acquired by the Railway is between 145' to 275' from the railway track  starting   from   Level   Cross   Gate   to   disputed   site   as   measured   by   the  Anchal Amin. The structures fall within the land recorded in favour of  South   Eastern   Railway   in   the   Revisional   Survey   Record   of   Rights  published in the year 1965.

6. Petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 1515 of 2016 has contended that  plot no. 177/232 under khata no. 2, Ward no. 5 having an area of 0.512  decimal   of   Notified   Area   Committee,   Jamshedpur   is   occupied   by   the  petitioner   over   which   he   is   carrying   on   business     since   1958.     This  petitioner through Interlocutory Application No. 2663 of 2016 has sought  6. to make correction in the area of plot as 12 decimal of land instead of  0.512. He submits that the Municipal Survey Record of Rights prepared in  the   year   1972   is   of   a   later   date   than   the   Revisional   Survey   Record   of  Rights prepared in 1965 relied upon by the Railways which form the basis  of Pleader Commissioner's report.   7. Counsel for the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 1515 of 2016 has  referred to the order dated 12th April, 2016 where submissions made by  learned counsel for Railway has been recorded which is to the extent that  demarcated area falls within the boundary wall of Railways property near  LIC gate.   In the  Pleader  Commissioner's report it has been stated that  the   structures   of   the   petitioners   fall   behind   the  dilapidated   boundary  wall except part of the structures of one of the petitioners which falls  within the area under dilapidated boundary wall.               It is not disputed by counsel for the said petitioner that the  disputed land even in the Municipal Survey Records of rights is recorded  as   Anabad Bihar Sarkar with the remarks as under illegal possession of  the petitioners.  8.           Reliance   has   been   placed   by   the   petitioner   on   an   order   of  Deputy   Commissioner,   East   Singhbhum,   Jamshedpur   in   Misc.   (P)   No.  73/1996­97 in the case of Gurucharan Singh Vs.­  State & Ors. under the  heading   of   demolition  matters,   to   submit   that   learned   Deputy  Commissioner   has   taken   into   account   that   the   said   khata   has   been  opened in the name of State of Bihar and Tisco Limited is a lessee under  the State. Deputy Collector, Tata Lease and Khasmahal, Jamshedpur was  directed to get the spot inquired into and to take necessary action in the  matter within the stipulated period.   9. In that view of the matter, as per the counsel for petitioners the  Respondent­ Railway cannot be the rightful owner of the said piece of  land.  Therefore, eviction of the petitioner from the land at the behest of  the Railways based upon the Pleader Commissioner's  Report would not  be justified in the eye of law.    7. However, none of petitioners have been able to show any  piece of document to justify their claim for ownership and title over the  piece of land in question. Petitioners have not been able to show any  document establishing their right, title and ownership over the property  in question.   10. In the present matter, as per the order dated 12 April, 2016,  the disputed area in question said to be occupied by the petitioners, was  inspected   through   the   Pleader   Commissioner   on   the   proposal   of   the  parties with a purpose to ascertain whether the petitioners' structure are  falling within the railway land or not?   11. It is to be pertinent to note  that the  instant exercise was  undertaken to  ascertain whether petitioners' structures fall within the  railway land or not. Existence of a dilapidated boundary is not of much  consequence.  The exercise undertaken has led to the conclusion that the  disputed   structures   held   by   the   petitioners   are   falling   within   the  revisional plot no. 183 under Khata no. 3 Mouza Jugsalai as recorded in  the Revisional Survey Record of Rights published in the year 1965 and  entered  in favour of South Eastern Railway.   12.       Even as per the assertion of the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 1515 of  2106,   the   disputed   plot   as  per   the   Municipal   Survey   Record   of   Rights  prepared   after   1965   shows   the   land   as  Anabad   Bihar   Sarkar  with   the  remarks   as   under   his   illegal   possession.   In   such   circumstances,   it   is  evident   that   petitioners   have   not   been   able   to   establish   any   claim   of  right,   title   and   ownership   of   the   property   in   question.   In   substance,  therefore   petitioners   are   unauthorized   occupants   of   the   piece   of   land  falling   within   the   railway   property   in   plot   no.   183   khata   no.   3   Mauza  Jugsalai as per the Revisional Survey Record of Rights published in 1965,  which is an unimpeachable document.  13.  In view of the discussions made hereinabove and the findings of  facts   ascertained   through   the   report   of   Pleader   Commissioner   which  have not been dislodged on any count by the petitioners, it can be safely  8. held  that the petitioners are illegal encroachers over the  railway land.  The   petitioners   despite   being   conscious   of   the   provisions   of   Public  Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 had voluntarily  proposed  for   an   inspection   through   a   Court   appointed   Pleader  Commissioner   to   ascertain   the   area   in   question   and   whether   it   falls  within  railway  land  or  not  and  to abide  by  the  decision  of this  Court  based   on   the   Pleader   Commissioner's   Report.     Once   it   has   been  determined that they are illegal encroachers over the piece of land held  by the railways,   as per their undertaking, they are now bound to vacate  the land in question. As a result petitioners are required to vacate the  piece  of land within a period of 1 week from today, failing which the  respondents   railway   would   take   steps   for   removal   of   unauthorized  encroachments.   14. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed. Consequently I. A.  No. 2663 of 2016 in W. P. (C) No. 1515 of 2016 stands disposed of.            (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) jk