IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India ---------- CWJC No.6937 of 1993 1. SRIPATI RAI 2. DUJE NARAYAN RAI, BOTH SONS OF LATE DHARAMNATH RAI. 3. RAMASHISH RAI 4. JAGDISH RAI 5. RAJENDRA RAI, ALL SONS OF LATE BHAGWAN RAI, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- KAUADIHA (SAMAHUTTA), P.S.- KARAGHAR, DISTT- ROHTAS-----------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 3. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI,KARAGHAR ROHTAS 4. RAJARAM RAI, S/O RAM DAS RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAUADIH, PS- KARGHAR,DISTT- ROHTAS-----RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Syed Alamdar Hussan, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.I.Charda, AC to GP-13 For the Private Respondent: Mr. R.B.Thakur,Advocate ----------- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ***** A.K.Tripathi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent no.4. Way back in the year, 1993 petitioners filed the present writ application seeking quashing of the order contained in Annexure-1 passed by the Circle Officer as well as order in appeal contained in Annexure-2 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. A proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which was Encroachment Case No. 17/92-93 under section 6 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956. The background to the said proceeding was that on some portion of C.S. Plot No. 230, which is supposed to be a public land, had been encroached by the present petitioners and objection in this regard was made by the - 2 - villagers including respondent no.4 who was Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time. In the proceeding before the Circle Officer the fact of encroachment was found and direction was issued to remove the same. It may be noted that the petitioners did not chose to appear before the Circle Officer to defend the proceeding against them. After the adverse order was passed they chose to file an appeal and challenged Annexure-1. The matter was gone into by the Collector where the Collector has prima facie gone on the evidence based in the entry of revisional survey and upheld the order of the Circle Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they were not given a proper opportunity before the Circle Officer and even before the appellate authority. An earlier proceeding initiated under section 133 of the Cr. P. C. in the similar circumstances was allowed to be dropped and this fact has been noticed by the Collector and that is the reason why a prejudicial order has come to be passed. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit and have taken a different stand and also brought material to show that the land in question is a public land duly recorded as such in the records of right and the petitioners have not shown any chit of paper with regard to actual possession or claim over the said land to that extent. But irrespective of the divergent stand taken in the matter, keeping in mind that petitioners did not get proper - 3 - opportunity and on categorical assurance given to the Court on behalf of the petitioners that they are willing to cooperate in the matter, furnish the material in support of their defence, the orders contained in Annexures-1 and 2 dated 19.11.1992 and dated 13.4.1993 respectively are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Circle Officer, Karaghar, District- Rohtas that he shall fix a date, issue notice to the parties concerned, hear them and thereafter render a decision at the earliest. The Court makes it clear that the petitioners will not have the liberty to seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter with a view to delay the encroachment proceeding before the Circle Officer concerned. This writ application is allowed. Annexures- 1 and 2 are quashed and matter stands remanded to respondent no.3 for an early decision. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 25th March,2009 N.A.F.R/RPS, Sr. SECY. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)