CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.779 OF 1992 A K Tripathi,J In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------- 1. Smt. Sumitra Devi, wife of late Bhola Prasad Yadav @ Bhola Yadav 2. Krishna Prasad 3. Mahendra Prasad 4. Lalan Prasad 5. Vijoy Prasad 6. Shashi Kumar 7. Santosh Kumar 8. Satish Kumar, All sons of late late Bhola Prasad Yadav @ Bhola Yadav. All residents of Mohalla – Horilganj, Police Station – Town Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad. 9. Smt. Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Bijay Kumar, resident of Tripolia Gate, Patharighat, P.S. Alamganj, Town & District- Patna. 10.Smt. Savita Kumari, wife of Sanjay Kumar, resident of 8/B Shivnagar Kadma, P.S. Kadma, District – Jahshedpur. ------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Jehanabad. 3. Anchal Adhikar, Jehanabad Anchal, Police Station and District – Jehanabad. 4. The District Board, Jehanabad through its Chairman. 5. Surendra Kumar, son of late Bhola Prasad Yadav, resident of Shivaji Path, P.S. and District – Jehanabad. ------------------ Respondents For the petitioners : M/S Amrendra Narayan and Sudhir Kr. Raj For the State : Mr Anil Kumar Jha, GA 2 with Mr. Sanat Kr Mishra, JC to GA 2. ------- PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Original petitioner has had to approach this Court on many a occasions. The dispute relates to a piece and parcel of land measuring 3.5 decimals situate on Patna Gaya Road in the town and district of Jehanabad identified as revisional Survey Plot No. 1691/867 which is a part of old Cadastral Survey Plot No. 867, - 2 - Thana 346. 2. The present litigation is directed against an order which has been passed by the Circle Officer directing eviction of the petitioner from the double storeyed house which he claims to be in occupation of in his own right, in the given historical background to the claim over the property. The order of eviction under Public Land Encroachment Act is contained in annexure-5 and is dated 15.5.1990. Against the order of eviction an appeal namely Case no. 47 DM/90-91 was filed. By a cryptic order dated 6.1.1992 the appeal was dismissed and in terms of the direction of the court the same has been brought on record as annexure-9. Petitioner therefore is seeking quashing of both annexure-5 and annexure-9. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is a substantive amount of evidence available from various revenue records to show that that the petitioners’ land on which a house was also constructed many years ago is not a public land. In fact, way back in Title Suit No.55 of 1922 between the wife of one Halim Saheb, Bar at Law and the District Board the status of the property was settled as the suit culminated into a compromise and the title of the ex-landlord was accepted. Thereafter the land has come within the possession of the present petitioners through their ancestors on valid transfer made in this regard. However, in a slip shod manner Circle Officer acting as the authority under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act has decided to throw the petitioner out from the property. From the records and the order contained in annexure-5 it - 3 - is apparent that proceeding was initiated against large number of persons which included this petitioner. Notices though were issued to the parties but from the narration in the order it does not seem to be satisfactory notice and without waiting or granting any time the order of removal of encroachment has come to be passed. Petitioner’s effort to get relief from the appellate forum also failed because of the order dated 6.1.1992 passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the appeal in a summary manner. 4. A decision having serious civil consequences is required to be passed after holding a proper proceeding in this regard. The power to be exercised under the Public Land Encroachment Act is no doubt drastic and may even be called summary but it does not mean that the authorities are absolved of the liability of even considering the basic material or evidence which the petitioner may have in support of his occupation of the property in question. Since both the Circle Officer and District Magistrate have not given proper and adequate opportunity to the petitioner which is confirmed by a look at the order passed by the Circular Officer contained in annexure- 5. This Court gets a feeling that looking at the large number of persons against whom proceeding had been brought about, the authorities seemed to be in hurry in deciding the issue one way or the other by giving a go by to the right of proper hearing and reasoned order. 5. In the above background and keeping in mind that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to place his case, both annexures 5 and 9 dated 15.5.1990/25.5.1990 and 6.1.1992 - 4 - respectively stand quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Circle Officer who shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner giving him adequate opportunity to present his case and after due consideration of the material which has been brought on record by either side would pass a speaking order with reasons in this regard. 6. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is also clarified that since the impugned order contained in annexure-5 was stayed on 29.1.1992 therefore the status quo had prevailed on the property and that is one of the considerations also why the matter is being remanded back to the original authority for proper adjudication. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 28th November, 2008. (NAFR) R K Pathak.