IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10233 of 2002 KASIM ANSARI, son of late Nakched Ansari, R/o village Padari Dusaiya, P.S. Bettiah Muffasil, Anchal Bettiah, P.O. Banu Chapra, District West Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah 3. The District Development Commissioner, West Champaran, Bettiah 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Bettiah Sub- div., Bettiah West Champaran 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Bettiah Anchal, Bettiah, West Champaran ... Respondents. ----------- 6. 23.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In this writ application the prayer made by the petitioner reads as follows: “I. Not to remove/ demolish the residential house, Bangala, Khanta etc. of the petitioner standing over a piece of land appertaining to Khata no. 121, plot no. 383, measuring 16 dhur situated towards the eastern side of public road running from Bari Tola to Lalgarh falling within village Padari Dusaiya of Bettiah Anchal. II. To quash the notice dated 22.7.2002 issued by the respondent no.5 whereby the petitioner was ordered to remove his possession from the land in question till 29.8.2002 (Annexure 5). III. To hold that the aforesaid piece of land is not a public 2 land.” With reference to the aforementioned relief counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire exercise undertaken by the Anchal Adhikari, the Collector under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, was wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the land in question is not a public land. He would refer to his show cause reply filed on 22.7.2002 before the Anchal Adhikari wherein he had taken the following two pleas for being held that the land in question was not a public land” ^^;g fd iz'uxr Hkqfe [ksljk ua0 383 vUnj [kkrk ua0 121 ekStk iknjh nqrS;k vUnj [kfr;ku losgku xSjet:vk ekfyd djds ntZ gS rFkk blesa edku dk gksuk Hkh ntZ gS rFkk dCtnkjh [kkus esa ekfyd iknjh jseh lkgsc dk uke ntZ gSA bl rF; ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;g tehu vke turk dh mi;ksx dh ugha gS u dHkh Hkh Fkh blfy, /kkjk&3 fcgkj ifCyd ys.M bUdzkstesaV ,DV 1956 ds izko/kku blesa ykxw ugha gSA ;g fd iz'uxr Hkwfe esa losZ ds igys ls rFkk vkt rd edku gS rFkk mDr iknjh us izkFkhZ ds iwoZtksa ls :i;k ysdj ml edku vkSj tehu dks yxHkx 1940 bZ0 esa tckuh fcdzh dj fn;k rFkk mlh oDr ls izkFkhZ ds 3 iwoZtksa dk n[ky dCtk bl edku ij jgrk vk;k oks vc muds iksrk izkFkhZ foi{kh dk n[ky dCtk mDr edku ij jgrk vkrk gSA** From the aforesaid statements itself there is no doubt that the petitioner was given a notice, an opportunity of hearing and the petitioner had also availed it by filing a show cause reply. Thereafter the authority, the Collector under the Act, on 22.7.2002 after rejecting his show cause reply had held the land in question to be a public land and thus, the encroachment made by the petitioner liable to be removed in terms of section 3 of the Act. As a matter of fact the petitioner was given time till 29.8.2002 to remove the encroachment and the petitioner in stead of availing statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal against such order of removal of encroachment has filed this writ petition on 9.9.2002. Whatever urgency the petitioner may have, he could not have avoided the statutory alternative remedy and the plea taken today that since there was imminent threat of his entire demolition 4 being made within a very short span of time, the petitioner had to approach this Court for getting some sort of interim protection is wholly without substance. In view of the fact that by an interim order dated 19.9.2002 this Court had stayed the operation of Annexure 5, the order seeking demolition, this Court would direct the petitioner to file his appeal before the Collector of Bettiah within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and the Collector of the district will ensure that the appeal of the petitioner is heard and disposed of within next two months. It is made clear that if for any reason whatsoever the Collector is not in a position to dispose of the appeal within the aforementioned period the petitioner will have to approach for further interim relief before the Collector. It is only for a period of three months from today the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 5, shall not be given effect to. 5 It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner that the land in question is not a public land and in fact this question will be gone into and decided by a reasoned order by the Collector while disposing of the appeal. With the aforementioned observation, this application stands disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/