IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13911 of 2004 PARAS NATH RAI SON OF LATE CHHATHU RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHARKURIYA, P.S. SURYAPURA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS --- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 3. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. CIRCLE OFFICER, SURYAPURA CIRCLE, SURAJPURA, P.S. SURYAPURA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 5. OFFICER INCHARGE, SURYAPURA, POLICE STATION DISTRICT ROHTAS, AT SASARAM. 6. HALKA KARAMCHARI, HALKA NO. OF CIRCLE SURYAPURA, P.S. SURYAPURA, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 7. JAI RAM PASWAN. 8. DINESH PASWAN. 9. RAMESH PASWAN. 10. RAJESH PASWAN ALL THE 4 SONS OF LATE MANGARU PASWAN, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BHAGKURIYA, P.S. SURYAPURA, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 11. RAJU PASWAN SON OF JAI RAM PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHARKURIYA, P.S. SURYAPURA, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM – RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner :Mr. Sachidanand Singh, Adv. For State : Mr. Arif, A.C. to SC III. For respondent no. 7 to 11: Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate. ------ 4/ 19-04-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction from this Court upon the respondent- authorities for removal of encroachment over a public land bearing Khesra no. 365 appertaining to khata no. 42 situate at village- Bharkuriya, P.S. 2 Suryapura, district- Rohtas. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 to 5, where in paragraph-4, it has been stated that on the basis of complaint/ information about the encroachment made by certain persons over a portion of the land in question, which is a as public land and has been recorded as “Anabad Sarbsadharan” in a revisional survey khatian, a case under section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 ( in short “the Act”) was initiated, giving rise to Encroachment Case No. 1 of 2004-05. Notices were issued to the petitioner as also to the private respondent nos. 7 to 11 and on conclusion of the proceeding, it was found that petitioner as also the private respondents have encroached upon certain portion of the land in question. Accordingly, direction was issued to the petitioner as also to the private respondents to remove the encroachment from the aforesaid public land. It has further been stated in paragraph-8 of the writ petition that not only the petitioner and private respondent nos. 7 to 11, rather altogether 29 persons have encroached over the public land, referred to above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order, he has removed the encroachment from the public land, but the private 3 respondents have not removed the encroachment over the public land. Admittedly, respondent nos. 7 to 11, though represented through a counsel, have not filed any counter-affidavit controverting the statements made either in the writ petition or in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that if proceeding under section 3 of the Act was initiated and final order was passed in terms of section 6 of the Act and if the encroachers or any other person have not filed any appeal in terms of section 11 of the Act, challenging the validity and legality of the said order, then the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act is required to be implemented in its letter and spirit . Encroachment made by the petitioner or the private respondent nos. 7 to 11 or any other person of the village is required to be removed strictly in terms of the order passed by the authority. The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite order and direction, the encroachment has not been removed by the private respondents and some other persons. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is hereby directed to appear before 4 respondent District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram (respondent no.2) within a period of four weeks from today with a certified copy of the present order along with a detailed representation raising his grievances about encroachment made by the private respondent nos. 7 to 11 and/or any other villagers. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner along with a certified copy of the present order, within the time prescribed, then, respondent District Magistrate shall be obliged to consider the same in accordance with law and shall further be obliged to get the encroachment removed from the public land made by any person, including the petitioner or the private respondent no. 7 to 11 or some other co-villagers. Entire exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of such a representation by the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that if no such representation is filed by the petitioner within the time prescribed with a certified copy of the present order, then it shall be construed that the writ petition has finally been rejected by this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)