IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13640 of 2004 BALRAM SINGH, Son of late Sarjoo Singh, Resident of Village-Dardha, Police Station-Goh, District-Aurangabad. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Collector, Aurangabad (Bihar). 3. The Anchal Adhikari, Goh, Anchal and Police Station-Goh, District-Aurangabad (Bihar). 4. Sri Pramod Singh, Son of Ramayan Singh, Resident of Village- Dardha, Police Station-Goh, District-Aurangabad. …….Respondent ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No.4, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh No.1, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv. For the State : Md. Arif, A.C. to S.C. III. For respondent no.4 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv. ----------- 4/ 19.04.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a grievance that order dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure-I) passed in Encroachment Case No.7 of 2003 by respondent- District Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 11 of The Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short Act) is not in accordance with law and therefore, be set aside. 3. The short facts relevant for the disposal of 2 the present writ petition may be indicated herein. The petitioner appears to have filed a petition before respondent-Anchal Adhikari for removal of alleged encroachment over a gairmazarua aam land bearing plot no. 804 appertaining to khata no. 82 situate at Village-Dardha, Police Station-Goh in the District of Aurangabad, as according to him, the aforesaid land is being used as public road and has been encroached upon by the respondent no.4. On the basis of aforesaid petition filed by the petitioner Encroachment Case No.19 of 2001 was started by the respondent-Anchal Adhikari in terms of Section 3 of the Act and final order in terms of Section 6 of the Act was passed on 13.12.2002 (Annexure-6) directing the respondent no.4 to remove his encroachment from the land in question by 30.12.2002, failing which by using force such encroachment shall be removed by the authorities concerned. 4. The respondent no.4, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the Act before respondent-District 3 Collector, giving rise to Encroachment Appeal No. 7 of 2003. After hearing the parties, respondent- District Collector has passed impugned final order dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure-I), whereby a direction has been issued to the respondent-Circle Officer to get the measurement of the land done afresh in his presence, and thereafter to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It has further been directed that both the parties should be given opportunity to remain present at the time of taking measurement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned order only on the ground that once a proceeding was concluded by the respondent-Anchal Adhikari under the provisions of the Act and a direction was issued for removal of the encroachment by the respondent no.4, then respondent-District Collector should not have remitted the matter back once again for fresh measurement and for passing the fresh order. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submits that as a matter of fact, the measurement was not taken by the respondent- 4 Anchal Adhikari in the original proceeding. Therefore, respondent-District Collector was fully justified to remit the matter back for fresh measurement. He also submits that the original order passed by respondent-Anchal Adhikari was in violation of principle of natural justice, as reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the respondent no.4 before passing the final order on 13.12.2002 (Annexure-6). 7. After having heard the parties and after considering the submissions, this Court finds that learned Appellate authority has remitted the matter back to the original authority for a valid ground. In any judicial or quasi judicial proceeding, the parties concerned are required to be heard by the statutory authority and only thereafter final order is required to be passed by the authority concerned. It is well established that principles of natural justice has to be followed in letters and spirit by the authority concerned, while exercising powers under a particular statute. In the present case, on perusal of Annexure -6, I find that reasonable opportunity of 5 hearing was not given to the respondent no.4 and the mandatory provision of Sections 3 to 6 of the Act were not followed by the respondent-Anchal Adhikari before passing the final order on 13.12.2002 (Annexure-6). 8. In the aforesaid background, respondent- District Collector was fully justified in remitting the matter back with a direction to take fresh measurement of land in presence of the parties including the petitioner. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition has to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)