IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3648 of 2005 PRABHU NATH MISHRA S/O Late Botu Mishra/RO Village Sathi, P.S.Sathi Disitrict- West Champaran……Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narkatiyaganj, District. West Champaran. 3. The Circle Officer, Lauriya District West Champaran. 4. The Circle Inspector, Layriya District West Champaran. 5. The Anchal Amin, Lauriya Dist. West Champaran. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Sathi, District West Champaran. 7. Karuna Devi W/o late Kapildeo Prasad /o village Sathi, P.S. SAthi District West Champaran……Respondents. ----------- 3 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 21 representing respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Though, the respondent No.7 has entered appearance, but none is present in the court to represent him. 2. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, while assailing the validity of the order dated 4.2.2004, passed in Case No. 19 of 2003-2004 by respondent No.3, the Circle Officer, Lauriya, submits that the impugned order is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice , as reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He next submits that land in question is a private land, belonging to the petitioner, over which he has constructed his residential house. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 was with respect to a private land and, therefore, the respondent Circle Officer has no jurisdiction to order for removal of alleged encroachment 2 allegedly made by the petitioner over the land in question. 3. After having heard the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned in the present form cannot be allowed to sustain. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent Circle Officer to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the respondent Circle Officer comes to a finding that the land in dispute is a private land, then he shall not exercise his powers under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. However, If the respondent Circle Officer comes to a finding that the dispute is with regard to measurement of land between the petitioner at one side and respondent No.7 on the other side, then Anchal Amin can be deputed on the costs being deposited by the concerned parties for taking measurement of the land in question, so that the dispute between the two sides is amicably resolved. 4. The petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the respondent Circle Officer with a certified copy of the present order within a period of six weeks from today, whereafter respondent Circle Officer, after hearing the parties shall decide the issues in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, as per the observation made above. 5. However, if the petitioner does not appear before the respondent Circle Officer with a certified copy of the 3 present order within the time prescribed by this Court, then it shall be construed that the writ petition filed on his behalf has finally been rejected. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Rahman/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)