IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8276 of 2008 1. Sri Sri 108 Mahavir Swami Lal Madir, Rajgir, P.S.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda through Vijay Kumar Jain, Prabhandhak ‘Nidhi’, Sri Bihar State Digambar Jain Teerth Kshetra Committee, Rajgir. 2. Vijay Kumar Jain, Son of late Gyanchand Jain, R/o- Prabandhak ‘Nidhi’, sri Bihar State Digambar Jain Teertha Kshetra Committee, Rajgir, P.s. Rajgir, District- Nalanda. …………… petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ragir, Nalanda. 4. The Deputy Collector Law Reforms, Rajgir, District- Nalanda. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Rajgir Anchal, Rajgir, District- Nalanda. ………….. respondents. ----------- 2 19.07.2011 The petitioners are aggrieved by the notices as contained in Annexure-2 whereby, the petitioners were directed to submit show cause, as to why the encroachment may not be removed. The notice does not stipulate the encroachment case number, the counter affidavit also does not stipulate the encroachment case number. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that after giving due opportunity, the encroachment has been removed. The writ petitioner submits that in pursuance to the notice no action has been taken, though, 2 the markings were made on the constructed area of the petitioner. Since, the petitioner is only aggrieved by the notice, which absolutely does not reflect the encroachment case number, the notice as contained in Annexure-2 is quashed, which will not preclude the authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law. With the above observation, this application is, accordingly, disposed off. Amrendra/ ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)