Yamuna Yadav and Others vs Paras Yadav and Others

V.N. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Sanjay Kr. Ghosarvey for the Petitioners and Sri Mukteshwar Singh for opposite party.

This civil revision application is directed against the order dt. 5.7.03 passed by the Munsif II, Buxar in Title suit No. 96/02 by which the court below has refused to direct the police force to remove encroachment from the land in dispute to ensure passage of accumulated water from the village drain, as according to the court below the water logging in the vicinity continued from before the passing of the status quo order dt. 21.11.02 (annexure 1).

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the water is not flowing in the drain as part of the drain has been encroached by the opposite party No. 1 who has encroached a portion of Gairmajarua Aam land bearing plot No. 1559 on the basis of erroneous entry in the revisional survey khatiyan.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party refuted the ''aforesaid contention'' and submitted that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the land since before and they have not encroached any portion of Gairmajarua Aam land. He further submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable for the failure of the Plaintiffs to impaled State of Bihar as party-Defendant.

Having considered the rival claim at this stage I will only observe that the maintainability of the suit is not in issue before me in the present civil revision. During the hearing of the revision application, learned Counsel submitted that the water logging from the area is required to be removed immediately otherwise there is every likelihood of various diseases spreading in the area and as such he submitted that the court below should have directed the police force to ensure passage of accumulated water from the drain which was encroached by opposite party. It appears from the impugned order that the court below has noticed the situation that the water logging is causing difficulty to the persons residing in the vicinity but has chosen not to take action, as according to the court below water logging continued even prior to passing of the status quo order and as such the court below did not think it proper to direct the police force for removal of the water logging during the pendency of the suit. In my view the court below should expedite the hearing of the suit as it involves water logging in the area affecting the residents. I, therefore, direct the court below to expedite the hearing of the suit so as to complete final adjudication between the parties within a period of six months.

This civil revision application is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. No cost.