Gaya: Magadh divisional commissioner Jitendra Srivastava finds himself in a dilemma.

The commissioner, in a quasi-judicial capacity, has to pass an order on a petition seeking the demolition of his own office located on a 1.06 acre area on what earlier used to be a waterbody.

RTI activist Brajnandan Pathak has filed the petition seeking demolition of the commissioner's office. Basing his demand on the Cathedral Survey records of 1914, Pathak's petition states that in the records, the area on which the commissioner's office stands was a tank. The tank was filled with earth to facilitate the construction of the office more than 10 years back.

In his petition, Pathak has annexed copies of the Supreme Court orders dated 28.01.2011, 25.07.2011, and a Patna High Court order dated 06.04.2017 directing the state government to restore water bodies to protect the ecology.

Pathak contended that the disappearance of waterbodies has resulted in an alarming dip in the town's water table. Moreover, the map of the commissioner's office was not approved by the municipal body rendering it in the illegal construction category, he said.

The petitioner also annexed copies of the official notification issued by C. Ashokvardhan, the then principal secretary, revenue and land reforms, directing officials concerned to ensure compliance of the Supreme Court order on the restoration of water bodies. The petitioner claimed that as per the Cathedral Survey records of 1914, a water body existed on plot No. 13392.

Earlier, the commissioner had sought a report on the status of the 1.06 acre land on which the office was constructed. Separate reports were sought from the Gaya sadar sub-divisional officer and the municipal commissioner.

The sadar sub-divisional officer referred the matter to the circle officer of the town block. The circle officer, in his report said as per the updated survey records, the plot on which the commissioner's office stands used to be a phulwari (garden).

In his report, the municipal commissioner said from the records it was not clear whether the map was approved or not. At the same time, the report stated that as per Section 8-A of the building laws, permission of the municipal body was not required for constructing offices of central and state governments. The hearing in the case concluded on Tuesday and the commissioner has reserved order on the demolition petition. The order is expected next week.

Legal opinion is divided on the issue whether the commissioner should sit in judgment on an issue in which he is a party in his official capacity and the conflict of interest dictum states that you can not be a judge in a dispute in which you have got any interest.

However, civil lawyer Ashok Kumar said there was nothing wrong in the commissioner passing an order in the matter as he has no personal stake in the matter and if the other party is not satisfied with the final order, it can appeal it.