IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6216 of 2003 1. Smt. Murahi Devi, widow of late Ram Adhar Pandey. 2. Ramu Pandey, son of late Ram Adhar Pandey. Both residents of village- Gimhinya, P.O.- Kasthari, P.S. Durgawati, District- Kaimur ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Anchaladhikari, Durgawati, District- Kaimur. —Respondents. ----------- 4/ 07-12-2010 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for setting aside a notice, Annexure-3, issued by respondent- Anchal Adhikari, Durgawati in the district of Kaimur, whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove their encroachment over the lands of khata no. 138 plot no. 60, area 2.37 decimals, details of which have been given in the aforesaid notice, as contained in Annexure-3, and further the date of hearing was fixed for 21.05.2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, the land of plot no. 60 appertaining to khata no. 138, area 99 decimals was settled in favour of petitioner no.1 by the ex. landlord and since then she has been coming in possession over the same. According to him, even ex. landlord submitted his Zamindari return showing the name of petitioner no.1 with respect to the lands in question. Therefore, in his submission, this land cannot be treated to be gairmajarua Aam/ public land. 2 4. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2. In his submission, lands in question is a gairmajarua Aam land and the petitioners could have shown their show-cause before the respondent- Anchal Adhikari and final order could have been passed by him, determining the claim of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question. He further submits that instead of filing a show-cause or approaching any higher authority, the petitioners have unnecessarily rushed to this Court making grievances with respect to the impugned notice, as contained in Annexure- 3. 5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials available on record. From the pleadings of the parties it is not apparent whether pursuant to the impugned notice, as contained in Annexure-3, the alleged encroachment over the lands in question, referred to above, has been removed by the authorities or not. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, no further action has been taken pursuant to the aforesaid notice. 6. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper that the claim of the petitioners regarding settlement of the 3 lands in question may be decided by the District Collector,Kaimur. If the lands have been validly settled by the competent authority, then there is no occasion for treating the same to be the gairmajarua Aam/public land. If the lands have not been validly settled and is a public land, then the petitioners cannot be said to be justified in obstructing the removal of the encroachment over that public land. Entire issues are required to be adjudicated by the District Collector, Kaimur. 7. In the aforesaid background, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a proper representation before the District Collector, Kaimur within a period of four weeks from today with all relevant documents in support of their claim of title and possession over the lands in question. If such a petition is filed, then the District Collector, Kaimur would be obliged to examine the entire claim of the petitioners vis-à-vis the government records. The District Collector, Kaimur is further directed to give opportunity of hearing to all concerned and decide the entire issues within a period of four months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioners. If no such representation along with a copy of this order is filed by the petitioners before the District Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) within time prescribed by this Court, then it would be construed that the present writ petition has stood 4 rejected by this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)