IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11559 of 2006 Sanjay Kumar, son of Sri Bhola Prasad, R/o Rampatti, P.S. Raj Nagar, Distirct Madhubani …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Madhubani, P.S. Madhubani, District Madhubani 3. The Deputy Land Reforms, Madhubani, P.S. Madhubani, District – Madhubani 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Raj Nagar, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Madhubani ……. Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Prabhas Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan, S.C. 7 5 18.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 21.8.2006 as contained in annexure 7 issued by Respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder he has been directed to vacate the lands in question within 24 hours. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that similar notice was issued to him earlier vide Annexure 3 and by Annexure 4 dated 12.11.2003. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 had opined that the land in dispute can be accepted Raiyati land of the petitioner. However, again the same notice was 2 issued vide Annexure 5 and this time the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Madhubani in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2005-06 had clearly recorded a finding that the land in question not being a public land, there would be no question of encroachment to be dealt under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act as necessary purcha of the land was issued by the State in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, he had directed the Anchala Adhikari, Raj Nagar to get the entire land of the petitioner measured and demarcated within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is urged that in place of doing that again the impugned notice vide Annexure 7 has been issued by the petitioner. At the time of hearing on 25.7.2011 the State was directed to place the final order passed by the Anchala Adhikari in compliance of the order passed by the D.C.L.R. as contained in Annexure 6. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State fairly concedes on the basis of instructions received that there has been no compliance of the order passed by the D.C.L.R. and no final order 3 thereafter has been passed. Learned counsel for the State could not show any material which required issuance of impugned notice as contained in Annexure 7 yet again. Learned counsel also submits that Circle Officer can proceed for measurement of the concerned land in the presence of the petitioner within the time fixed by the Court. In above view of the matter notice as contained in Annexure 7 cannot be sustained in law and, thus, the same is quashed. The Respondent no. 4 is directed to comply the order passed by the order dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure 6) within 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order by making the measurement and demarcation of the land in presence of the petitioner and if illegal possession is still found let him pass necessary order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the petitioner will cooperate and produce the necessary documents if the same is required by the authorities. Accordingly this application stands allowed 4 to the extent indicated above. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)