IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4140 of 2010 1. MURLI MANOHAR MISHRA S/O LATE SHIV NANDAN MISHRA R/O VILLAGE - GANDHWAR, P.S - SAKARI , DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 2. SUNITA DEVI W/O BALRAM MISHRA R/O VILLAGE - GANDHWAR, P.S - SAKARI , DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR, MADHUBANI. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER RAHIKA BLOCK - MADHUBANI. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Sunil Kr. Karn. Sanjeev Kumar. For the State : Mr. G.P. Ojha, AC to SC-7. ------------ 03 06.04.2010 With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioners are aggrieved by order of the Circle Officer, Rahika, Madhubani, as contained in Memo No.266 dated 02.03.2010, by which petitioner has been asked to remove encroachment in purported compliance of orders passed in MJC No.1617 of 2005. Petitioners had stated that there was no encroachment proceedings whatsoever initiated and without such a proceeding being there straight way a removal order could not be issued. Petitioners submitted that the land, in question, stands recorded in the name of his father and they have been in occupation thereof for over 60 years. It would be a question of right, title and interest in an immovable property if it were termed as encroachment now. Learned counsel for the State had sought time to seek - 2 - instruction and a counter affidavit has been filed and perusal thereof makes it clear that the impugned order was issued not in pursuance to any proceedings duly instituted but merely because some people had made a representation to the Collector, who directed the Circle Officer to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action. The Circle Officer allegedly took measurement and based thereon ordered for removal of encroachment. I am afraid, the law is otherwise. Before a person can be asked to remove encroachment from public property a proceeding has to be initiated. The basis for alleging encroachment made it be a report, petition or otherwise have to be disclosed and then the proceedings have to be decided, while doing so, one has to keep in mind where questions of right, title and interest in property get involved, then in those summary proceedings no order should be passed and resort must be taken to Civil Court. A proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act is a summary proceeding having drastic effect and it is because of this the aforesaid is the position. In view of the facts as noted above, as emanating in the present case, I have no option but to quash the impugned notification, as issued by the Circle Officer, Rahika, Madhubani, and restrain him or any district authority in proceeding against the petitioners except in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)