IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2400 of 2004 MOHAMMAD SHAMEED Son of Late Mohd. Khuda Baksha, Resident of Village & Post : Pipra latif, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria. ........................Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Khagaria 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gogari. 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Khagaria 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gogri 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Block : Parbatta 6. The Circle Inspector, Block : Parbatta. 7. The Anchal Amin, Block : Parbatta. 8. The Officer Incharge, Parbatta P.S. All within the District of Khagaria ....................Respondents. ----------- 5/ 24.02.2011 Heard the parties on I.A. No. 427 of 2009 as also on the main matter. 2. I.A. No. 427 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of the legal heirs and representatives of sole petitioner, Md. Shameed, stating therein that he died on 17the November, 2008, leaving behind the applicants in the present interlocutory application as his legal heirs and representatives. It is prayed that the name of sole petitioner may be expunged from the array of the parties and be substituted by the applicants, being his legal heirs and representatives. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State 2 does not resist the prayer made in the aforesaid interlocutory application. Accordingly, prayer made in the present interlocutory application is allowed. The name of the sole deceased-petitioner is directed to be expunged and he be substituted by the applicants, being his legal heirs and representatives, and they all have entered appearance through a lawyer by duly executing a Vakalatnama. 4. With the consent of the parties, main writ petition is also taken up for its final disposal. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing a notice dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure 3) issued by respondent Anchal Adhikari under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 in Encroachment Case No. 4 of 2002-03 asking the original writ petitioner to show cause as to why the encroachment made by him over plot no. 613 area 1 bigha, 1 Katha and 1 dhur situate at village-Pipra Latif be not removed under the provisions of the said Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar proceeding was started earlier with respect to lands in question and that was decided in favour of the original writ petitioner, therefore, the fresh proceeding is not at all maintainable. 3 6. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the averments made in the detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 5. In the aforesaid counter affidavit, the very validity of settlement of lands in question allegedly made in favour of the original writ petitioner has been questioned by the respondents. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is completely misconceived and ill-advised. On receipt of the notice, contained in Annexure 3, he could have submitted his show cause and could have raised all the points before the original authority and could have shown to him that the present proceeding was not at all maintainable, but instead, he has directly come to this Court. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed with a liberty to the substituted petitioner(s) to submit their show cause before the original authority within four weeks from today raising all the grievances, whatever are available to them and whatever have been pleaded in the present proceeding. If such a show cause is filed by the substituted petitioners within the time prescribed by this Court, the original authority shall be obliged to consider the same in accordance with law, and shall further be obliged to 4 dispose of the encroachment case within three months from the date of filing such a show cause. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )