IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10312 of 2008 KEDAR YADAV SON OF LATE NARAYAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILL+ P.O. BANUCHAPER, P.S. BETTIAH MUFASSIL, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 2. COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, BETTIAH ANCHAL, BETTIAH, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. … RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.11943 of 2008 KEDAR YADAV SON OF LATE NARAYAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILL AND P.O. BANUCHHAPER, P.S. BETTIAH MUFASSIL, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. .. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 2. COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, BETTIAH ANCHAL, BETTIAH, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 06.12.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Ist Subordinate Judge, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 94 of 2008, whereunder he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to restrain the authorities from proceeding against him with regard to the lands in question under the provisions of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act. Aforesaid order of the Subordinate judge has also been affirmed by the District Judge under orders dated 23.6.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5 of 2008, Annexure-2, which is also under challenge in 2 these proceedings. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is a settllee of the lands in question from the Bettiah Estate and in support of the story of settlement reliance has been placed on the Miscellaneous Receipt No.11 dated 3.5.1939 of the Bettiah Estate, photo copy whereof is annexed with the petition. It is also submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the Bettiah Estate, Jamabandi was also created in favour of the petitioner by the authorities of the state but ignoring such settlement and Jamabandi present encroachment proceeding has been drawn against the petitioner treating the lands in question to be Kaishare Hind land. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the lands in question are the lands of Bettiah Estate which is still under courts of wards and has not vested in the State of Bihar in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The lands in question having not vested in the State of Bihar proceeding under Public Land Encroachment Act is not maintainable for the eviction of the petitioner from the lands in question. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I dispose of the two writ petitions directing the Circle Officer, Bettiah who has initiated proceeding for eviction of the petitioner from the lands in question to first decide as to whether the lands in question are the lands of the Bettiah Estate or Kaishare Hind land which is a public land within the meaning of Public Land 3 Encroachment Act. In the event it is decided that lands in question are Kaishare Hind land then the C.O. Bettiah shall be entitled to proceed against the petitioner for demolition but before proceeding for demolition the authorities will grant reasonable time to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the two writ petitions are disposed of. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)