IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13757 of 2005 1. Sheo Bhagat, son of late Banshi Bhagat, 2 Jagdish Bhagat, son of late Adalat Bhagat, both resident of village Maheshpur, P.S. Shikarpur, District- West Champaran –Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah 3. The Additional Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah, 4. The Circle Officer, Narkatiaganj, West Cham,paran, Bettiah --- Respondent 1st St. 5. Chandsi Prasad son of not known. 6. Mahendra Prasad son of Ram Briksh Bhagat. 7. Ramayan Prasad son of Ram Briksh Bhagat. 8. Haridwar Prasad son of Jham Lal Bhagat & 9. Birendra Prasad son of Jham Lal Bhagat, All resident of Maheshpur, P.S. Shikarpur, District West Champaran, Bettiah, Respondent IInd Set. ---- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 4 24.11.2011 Heard Mr.Y.V.Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have moved for quashing the order issued by the Additional Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah under Memo No. 1505 dated 23.8.2005 and the consequential notice dated 5.10.2005 issued by the Circle Officer, Narkatiaganj to the effect that the petitioners have been given a direction to remove the encroachment . This Court by order dated 26.3.2007 had stayed the operation of the order dated 05.10.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the orders are arbitrary and unsustainable and there should be a proper proceeding initiated under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act and as such the orders become without jurisdiction and nonest in the eyes of law. He submits that the authorities, after giving due opportunity have to first determine whether any public 2 land has been encroached by the petitioners and only upon a tentative finding reached pursuant to such actual and physical measurement/verification, a proceeding can be initiated under the Land Encroachment Act. In the present case he submits that material is available to show that without any such spot verification and also without any independent finding of any public land having been encroached and without initiating any proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act, the orders impugned in the present writ petition, had been passed. The learned counsel for the State has also been heard and according to him, the order is justified as the authorities have found that the Public land has been encroached and the petitioners are obliged to vacate the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is in agreement with submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The authorities do not have any powers except those which are actually conferred on them in accordance with law under the relevant statute. In the present case, at first a proper notice was required to be given regarding the land in question to the persons concerned and thereafter, if it was found that any land which did not to the petitioners and was encroached by them, then proper proceedings could be initiated, which could have been taken to their logical conclusion resulting in the encroachment being removed either by the party concerned or by the State Authority, for which the cost could also be recovered . In view of the discussions made hereinabove and upon 3 consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned orders are hereby setaside. If the authorities have any doubt with regard to the present land or otherwise, then at first notice will have to be issued to the petitioners for getting the same verified and measured which shall have to be done in the presence of all the parties concerned. Thereafter, if it transpires that there is encroachment made upon Public land, proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act or any other law may be initiated and taken to their logical conclusion. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)