IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4720 of 2010 1. MD.SHAHJAHAN s/o late Jalil Ahmad, resident of Mohalla- Azimganj, P.S. Haweli Kharagpur, District- Munger. 2. Gopal Kumar s/o late Banarsi Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Khash Bazar, P.S. Haweli Kharagpur, District – Munger. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division. 3. The Collector , Munger. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Munger 5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Haweli Kharagpur, Munger. 6. The Circle Officer, Haweli Kharagpur, Munger. 7. The S.D.P.O., Haweli Kharagpur, Munger. 8. The Officer-incharge, Haweli Kharagpur Police Station, Munger, District- Mugner. ----------- 2 18.3.2010 It appears that one Priyamda Bahan had filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 554 of 2010 complaining that the passage from her plot of land, which houses residence, had illegally been encroached upon by some persons, for which an encroachment proceeding being Encroachment Proceeding No. 2 of 2009-10 had been initiated but inspite of the fact that all report being there, no step having been taken for removal of encroachment, the result being that she had virtually got her land locked. Upon this report, while disposing of the said writ petition a detailed order was passed on 15.2.2010 with a direction to the respondents- district authority to conclude the proceeding expeditiously and if encroachments are found they were also to be removed expeditiously in accordance with law. The Collector of the district was made responsible for proper implementation of the order of this Court. Now, the present writ petition has been filed by the two petitioners, who are being asked to demolish their encroachments in 2 purported compliance of the order of this Court. First thing first. This Court only reminded the authority to their lawful duties and issued no direction. It is the law giving authority to the district administration and cast a duty upon them to act. When they failed to act in accordance with law, the writ petition was filed and a mandamus reminding them of their duty was issued. It is high time, the authority took responsibility for their own action instead of relying on order of this Court , which should not be done. Coming to the impugned notice that is being issued, which is dated 4.3.2010 by the Circle Officer, Haweli Kharagpur in relation to Encroachment Case no. 2/ 2009-10, all this Court would like to clarify that this Court never directed, ignoring the provision of statutory mandate of hearing and deciding the matter in accordance with the provision of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, on the strength of the order of this Court any person can be bulldozed from his land. Rule of law since survived, the direction was to take action in accordance with law. Without proper notice, without proper hearing and without proper adjudication , no such direction can be issued to vacate the land or to face demolish. All that Court can emphasize is in accordance with law. Encroachment if found has to be expeditiously removed. Thus, petitioners would be at liberty to file their objection to the aforesaid notice. They would be supplied with the report of the Amin as they asserted that they have not touched any plot on which public right of way is claimed. This matter requires expeditious adjudication and disposal. 3 Till such time , it is not so decided in accordance with law, enjoyment of petitioners’ property would not be restricted in any manner. The District Magistrate- cum- Collector , Munger would ensure that proceeding in accordance with law be concluded at the earliest and not later than one month as the suffering of the writ petitioners of the earlier writ petition is daily. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Magistrate –cum-Collector, Munger by Fax at the cost of the petitioners. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)