IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1842 of 2010 RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.1907 of 2010 RAJDEV CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 09.02.2010 Petitioner in both these writ applications are aggrieved by Annexure-11, a notice issued by the Circle Officer, Kateya, Gopalganj by which he has been asked to remove the alleged encroachment from public land in pursuance to purported directions issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12672 of 2009. Petitioner states that there were no proceedings for land encroachment initiated in this regards and merely because the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation gave liberty to approach the authorities for removal of encroachment, it is taken to be a direction or a finding as against the petitioner who were not noticed in the said writ petition. On perusal of Annexure-11, it is clear that there were no proceeding either initiated. It is well settled that unless the proceeding is duly initiated and conducted in terms of the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, no such order can be passed. Petitioner has asserted that he is due settlee of land from Bhoodan Yojna Committee and his name is duly mutated in accordance - 2 - with their assertion that they are in continuous possession from decades and can not be evicted in such a summary manner. In view of the facts as noticed above, admittedly no proceeding under Public Land Encroachment Act at all initiated straightaway. Notices have been issued to remove encroachment being notices pursuant to orders of this Court. I am afraid the whole exercise is wrong. This Court never directed that without following procedure of law any encroachment should be removed. It only gave liberty to the petitioner of the earlier writ petition to move appropriate application before the authorities concerned. There was no objection by this Court on the issues involved. Thus the action of the Circle Officer in issuing the impugned notice dated 19.12.2009 is wholly without jurisdiction on the face of it and is set aside accordingly. State would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law if it is found that petitioner or anyone has encroached upon government land but that could only be after due notice and hearing the parties in a duly constituted proceeding. With these observations, the writ petitions are being disposed off. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)