IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8594 of 2002 1. Gangia Devi, W/o Balgobind Mochi 2. Shanti Devi, W/o Late Ram Briksha Prasad 3. Devpati Devi, W/o Madho Ram 4. Teni Das, S/o Janki Devi Das 5. Parwati Devi, W/o Fakira Prasad 6. Raj Kishor Prasad, S/o Ram Kishun Prasad 7. Reena Devi, W/o Gautam Pandey 8. Mundrika Bharti, S/o Nagina Bharti 9. Sita Devi, W/o Girdhari Yadav 10. Arjun Prasad Raut, S/o Sitaram Pd. Raut 11. Sunil Kumar, S/o Swan Chakravorty Petitioners no. 1 to 6 are resident of Bageshwari, P.S. Delha, District Gaya, Petitioners no. 7 to 11 are resident of Maranpur, P.S. Civil Line, District Gaya … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya 3. The Circle Officer, Town, Gaya … Respondents. ----------- 6. 21.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. In this writ application the eleven petitioners have moved this Court for the following relief: “(i) For direction to the respondent concerned not to demolish or interfere with the peaceful possession of the house of the petitioners situated on plot nos. 1554, 1555, 4/128 and 1 in Gaya. (ii) For quashing the notices issued to the petitioners (Annexures 3 series of the writ petition), by which the direction has been given to remove the 2 encroachment on the respective lands.” This Court had directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit it has been stated that the encroachment case against the petitioners and others has been initiated and that no final order has been passed because of the pendency of this case and the interim order passed on 2.8.2002. The respondents in fact have further explained in their counter affidavit in paragraph no.8 that the land in question being the subject matter of encroachment case is part and parcel of Ramshila and Brahamayoni hills which have been declared as archeological monument and is a site of national importance for pilgrims visiting in the town of Gaya. These facts stated at length in the counter affidavit have not been controverted but then the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there being a bonafide dispute as to whether the land belongs to the petitioners or Archeological Survey of India, such a complicated question 3 cannot be agitated and gone into by way of a summary proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. In the opinion of this Court such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for two reasons, namely, the petitioners have not denied the fact mentioned in the counter affidavit whereas the respondents have given a parawise reply to the writ petition denying the very averment of the petitioners to have any right of such title. Secondly, this Court can take a judicial notice that Gaya has a number of Archeological sites and if those sites are in any way being encroached by the petitioners there cannot be said to have a prima facie case. Merely because in some sale deed a private person had sought to convey land to another person that by itself cannot be a proof of fact that such land in raiyati land unless the corresponding revenue records or admitted records would show the land to be a raiyati land. As the Government records would go to show that these lands are land of public importance and under the control of 4 Archeological Survey of India, this Court will proceed on the basis that the land in question for the time being is a public land. Such presumption, however, would be a reubtable and in case the petitioners produce any evidence including the document to establish that the land in question was their raiyati land the same will be gone into by the authorities and decided before giving a finality to the encroachment proceedings. The petitioners in fact will have also a remedy of appeal against any order passed by the Anchal Adhikari, the Collector under the Act and therefore, there would be no reason for the petitioners to panic even if the original order goes against them. The writ petition, therefore, as against the show cause notice in an encroachment proceeding must be held to be premature and accordingly, the same is disposed of with an observation that the petitioners may approach the Circle Officer, Gaya who in directed to continue with the proceedings under the Bihar Public Land 5 Encroachment Act and conclude the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners are also directed to appear in person or through their counsel before the Anchal Adhikari with a copy of this order within a period of two months from today and thereafter either the Circle Officer will hear the petitioners and dispose it of within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The interim order of this Court dated 2.8.2000 staying the encroachment proceedings is hereby modified and the Circle Officer will now be at liberty to recommence the encroachment proceeding which he must conclude by passing his final order within the time frame as indicated above. It goes without saying that as the petitioners stood protected by an interim order of this Court dated 2.8.2002 such protection to them will continue till the Circle Officer disposes of the encroachment proceedings. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is finally 6 disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/