IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10438 of 2005 1. Smt. Leelawati Devi, W/o Shri Haridayanand Tiwary, resident of Vilalge – Narainpur, P.S. – Bagaha, P.O. – Naraipur, District – West Champaran 2. Shri Hridayanand Tiwary, S/o Late Vishwanath Tiwary, resident of village – Narainapur, P.O. – Naraipur, P.S. – Bagaha, District – West Champaran …………….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Collector, West Champaran 3. Block Development Officer, Bagaha-2, P.S. – Bagaha, District – West Champaran 4. Circle Officer, Bagaha-2, P.S. – Bagaha, District – West Champaran 5. Manager, Bettiah Estate, District – West Champaran ………………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 02. 09.11.2011 Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 5. The writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 22.09.1996, passed by the Circle Officer, Bagaha-2 in Encroachment Case No. 35/96-97, which has been affirmed by the Collector vide order dated 08.07.2005 in Revision Case No. RM76/98-99. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the admitted position that the petitioners were tenants on the property of Bettiah Estate, thus there was no legal justification to initiate any proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). He submits that from the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 5, it is now admitted position that the petitioner was a tenant and was also paying monthly rental. 2 Contention in the counter affidavit is that after 1995, he stopped paying such rent. In that view of the matter his occupation of the premises does not come under the definition of ‘encroachment’ under the aforesaid Act. Considering the rival contentions and after going through the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act, this Court finds the contention of learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners to be valid. The petitioners admittedly being tenant under the Bettiah Estate may have become defaulters for which a proceeding might lie against them for eviction or otherwise, but they cannot be held to be encroachers and proceeding initiated under the aforesaid Act. In view of the clear cut position, this Court has no option but to quash the orders dated 22.09.1996 and 08.07.2005. Accordingly the same are quashed.The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners and take action as per the provisions of law. Before parting with this order, this Court made a query from the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as to the reason why they stopped paying rent since it is their case that they are tenants of Bettiah Estate. Learned Senior Counsel fairly submits that this Court may grant some time so that they may be able to clear their up to date dues. Accordingly, let the petitioners approach the respondent no. 5 within six weeks from today, upon which they shall be given an up to date account of their arrears of rent as they had been paying. 3 The petitioner shall thereafter clear the same within six weeks and shall also keep paying the up to date current rent. This shall be without prejudice to right of either side. The writ petition stands disposed off. SKM (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)