UNION OF INDIA Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR MONGHYR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railways and the Divisional Railway Manager, being the petitioners, the prayer is for quashing Annexure-3 which is an order dated 7-12-1981 of the Additional Collector, Monghyr (respondent No. 1).

(2.) Several persons made encroachment on the railway lands near about Jhajha Railway Station. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jamui, was moved for the removal of the said encroachment. A proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bihar 1956 Act") was initiated by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. Notices were issued, parties were heard and ultimately, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms ordered removal of the encroachment under S.6(e) of the Bihar 1956 Act with the further orders that if the encroachment is not removed by the date fixed therein, namely, 22-5-1981, action under S.7 of the Bihar 1956 Act will be taken for getting the encroachment removed. The persons aggrieved, who were asked to remove the encroachment, preferred an appeal before the Collector which was heard by the Additional Collector, Monghyr. The Additional Collector took the view that the proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Bihar 1956 Act was without jurisdiction as the appropriate remedy for removal of the encroachment was under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act"). The result was that by the impugned Annexure (Annexure-3) dated 7-12-1981, the Additional Collector (respondent No. 1) quashed the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms directing removal of the encroachment. The petitioners have now taken up the matter in this Court in the instant writ application.

(3.) The submission of Sri Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners was that the view taken by the Additional Collector was wrong inasmuch as the petitioners were within their rights to invoke the provisions of the Bihar 1956 Act. This contention was resisted by Sri Roy, learned counsel for the respondents. His sole submission was that the initiation of the proceeding under the Bihar 1956 Act was barred under section 15 of the 1971 Act. In support of his contention, Sri Roy relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1972 Rent CJ 955 (Hari Singh v. The Military Estate Officer). No other point having been canvassed before this Court, the point to be determined in this application is a short one. 3A. The Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 has been enacted by the legislature of the State of Bihar and the 1971 Act has been enacted by the Parliament. The Bihar Act, 1956, as the preamble shows, was enacted to make better provisions for the removal and prevention of encroachment on public lands. S.3 of the Bihar 1956 Act makes provisions not only for removal of encroachment already made but also to issue temporary injunction to stop encroachment. Sub-section (1) of S.3 of this Act provides, inter alia, that :