IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14383 of 2006 Gaya Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Gaya through its Principal Dr. Ravindra Kumar S/o Rambalak Singh, aged about 50 years resident of Gaya Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Gaya, Village- Amawan, Distt.- Bodhgaya- 824231, Bihar….. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Gaya, Bihar, 2. The Circle Officer, Bodhgaya, Bihar… …..Respondents ………. For the Petitioner : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G. 8 ……………….. 12 30.09.2011 The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice issued in Form II under Section 6 (2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove encroachment from the lands mentioned in the aforesaid notice. It is claimed by learned counsel that the notice appears to have been issued without following the procedure of law as the petitioner was never informed or given any opportunity of hearing at the time of concerned proceeding. Learned counsel submits that the impugned notice appears to have 2 been issued in complete violation of statutory provisions. When the matter was heard on 26.07.2011, a direction was given to the State to bring on record the final order passed under Section 6(c) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, pursuant to which the aforesaid notice was issued. However, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed taking a stand that the concerned file is missing from the office of the concerned circle office. Respondent no.2 has already lodged FIR against the person who was responsible to keep the record. However, since nothing has been brought on record by the State to show that the impugned notice has been issued after following the procedure of law, the concerned notice cannot be sustained in law. It is very strange that notice under Section 6(2) of the Act was issued in the matter but when final order which was the basis of the concerned notice was directed to be produced then curiously the concerned file has been found missing. 3 In above view of the matter, the writ application is allowed and the impugned notice, as contained in Annexure- 11, is quashed. However, this order would not come in the way of the State authorities in initiating a fresh proceeding in accordance with law with respect to the concerned land, if such occasion arises. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)