IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2415 of 2010 1. Sagam Lal Choudhary S/O Late Guli Chaudhary, R/O Vill- Mahinathpur, Tola Kushmaut, P.S- Raj Nagar, Distt- Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 3. The Collector, Madhubani 4. The Additional Collector, Madhubani 5. The Anchal Adhikari Raj Nagar, Distt- Madhubani 6. Sri Anand Chaudhary S/O Late Ratilal Chaudhary R/O Vill- Mahinathpur Tola, Kushmaut, P.S- Raj Nagar, Distt- Madhubani ----------- 5 25.07.2011 Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha No.2, learned A.C. to S.C.14 for the State and Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. Facts of the case in brief is that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on an information provided by the respondent No.6 regarding encroachment on certain land in the nature of a public land, inter alia for removal of the encroachment made by the petitioner. In view of the petition filed by the respondent No.6 a duly constituted proceeding was initiated under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Upon consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner and the evidence in support of his claim, the Circle Officer, Rajnagar held the petitioner as an encroacher on the public land, the details of which is given in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, measuring about 21 Kathas and 5 dhurs. The Circle Officer, Rajnagar vide order dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure-1/C) passed orders against the petitioner upholding the complaint made by the respondent Nos. 6. It is not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of the Circle 2 Officer in Encroachment Case No. 2 of 2007-08 before the Additional Collector, Madhubani giving rise to Appeal No. 18 of 2007-08 was allowed and by order dated 28.05.2008 the order of the Circle Officer was set aside. It is again not in dispute that although no further remedy lies under the provisions of the Act but on an application filed by the State of Bihar before the Collector of the district, an encroachment case was registered by the Collector giving rise to Encroachment Case No. 47of 2008-09 and the Collector, Madhubani even while acknowledging that he had no jurisdiction under the Act to entertain such application yet proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Madhubani vide order passed on 23.10.2008 impugned at Annexure-1/A to the writ petition. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector before the Commissioner of the Division and who by order dated 22.12.2009 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner bearing Case No. 11 of 2008-09 placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the Collector, Madhubani vide order passed on 23.10.2008 as contained in Annexure-1/A has referred the matter for consideration before the Commissioner of the Division hence he pursued the matter by filing a representation before the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga giving rise to Case No. 11 of 2008-09. It is manifest from the statutory provision that the only remedy provided under the Act against the order passed by the Collector under the Act under Section 6 is by way of Appeal under Section 11 and which stands exhausted under the orders passed by the 3 Additional Collector dated 28.05.2008. No further appeal or revision lies thereafter. The State of Bihar or its functionaries thus had no further remedy available under the act and the appeal before the Collector of the District was wholly misconceived. Equally, any order thereon was without sanction of law. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Collector of the district dated 23.10.2008 as contained in Annexure-1/A and the order passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division dated 22.12.2009 as contained in Annexure-1 are dehors the provisions of the Act and the authorities have assumed jurisdiction which is not vested under the Act. The legal position being aforesaid, the orders placed at Annexures-1 and 1/A cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed and set aside. However, this order would not preclude the aggrieved parties from taking recourse to remedies as available to them under Law. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)