IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8902 of 2006 ***** Shambhu Sharan Singh, Son of late Sidhi Singh, resident of Mohalla-East Gandhi Maidan, Church Road Gaya, P.S.-Civil Line, Distt.-Gaya. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. Additional Collector, Gaya. 4. Circle Officer, Chandauti, District-Gaya. 5. Administrator, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya through its Administrator. …. …. Respondents ----------- 3. 12.1.2009. The prayer of the petitioner is to restrain the respondents from dispossessing him from the land, which is Khata No.21(A), Khesra No.62/14642, area 105 err., which is situated in East Gandhi Maidan, Church Road, Gaya. Contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that in the most arbitrary fashion some shops, which had been constructed on so-called raiyati land of the petitioner, came to be demolished by the respondent authorities without any proceeding having been initiated against the petitioner or any order having been passed in this regard. In fact, the respondents have been threatening further demolition and ouster of the petitioner from the land and property but it is only because of the intervention of the Court that they have restrained themselves from causing further damage to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Gaya Municipal Corporation, where they had stated that the land in question is “Qaisare-Hind” land and the petitioner had made constructions over it, which is causing traffic bottle-neck in a very busy area of Gaya. A proceeding was initiated and a notice to the petitioner by the beat of drum was given but since the petitioner did not respond and - 2 - satisfy the authorities, the follow-up action had to be taken. The Court is not satisfied or impressed by the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Gaya Municipal Corporation. The State is silent on the issue because no counter affidavit has been filed by them so far. Be that as it may, even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the petitioner is staying on a “Qaisare-Hind” land, even then a proceeding may be under the Public Land Encroachment Act would be required. It is not open to the authorities to decide the matter all by themselves and embark upon removing the encroachment in the manner in which they have done in the present case. The writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the respondent State authorities that if they want to remove further encroachments from the land in question, of which the petitioner claims possession, then they shall have to initiate a proceeding in accordance with law or notice ought to be given to him and only after hearing him further directions be issued for initiating action against the petitioner. Till such steps are taken the petitioner would not be disturbed from the present property. The writ application stands allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)