RAGHUBANSH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent no.5.

(2.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the notice dtd. 10/9/2016 contained in Annexure 2 by which the petitioner has been directed to remove encroachment from plot nos.458 and 459 to the extent indicated in the notice and, if the same is not done, he has been threatened to be removed with the help of the administration.

(3.) Original records were called for and they have been produced. It appears that vide Annexure 5 dtd. 19/8/2016, the Sub- Divisional Public Redressal Officer, Tekari, District, Gaya passed an order on the complaint made by one Satrudhan Kumar, i.e., the respondent no.5 and other villagers who have not been named, directing the Circle Officer, Tekari to initiate a proceeding for removal of encroachment from plot nos.458 an area of 0.20 decimals and plot no.459 an area of 0.12 decimals which have been described as Bandh? and Nala?. It appears that it was alleged by the complainant that one Harendra Singh and Raghuwansh Singh, i.e., the petitioner, had encroached the Nala and, after filling it, they have constructed houses upon it and have dug boring also. The Circle Officer was directed to initiate an encroachment proceeding and pass speaking order and take consequential action within 21 days. It is made clear that before passing of such order, the Sub-Divisional Public Redressal Officer had not granted any opportunity to the alleged encroachers and the order has been passed only after hearing the complainant and the Anchal Adhikhari. Thereafter, he had fixed time for 21 days for such action. It further appears from the records that, since nothing was being done by the Circle Officer in the eye of the Sub-Divisional Public Redressal Officer, he was reprimanded for that. However, he was informed that the Magistrate has already been deputed for removal of encroachment. Thereafter, it appears that the encroachment proceeding team, when reached at the spot, were greeted with brick-batting for which action Sub-Divisional Public Redressal Officer has stated in the order dtd. 23/11/2016 that Sub- Divisional Officer, Tekari should take remedial measure. The order- sheet of the Encroachment case no.02/16-17 initiated on the basis of Annexure 5 passed by the Sub-Divisional Public Redressal Officer discloses that the Circle Officer sought report from the Anchal Amin. On 2/9/2016, he had given direction for issuance of notice upon the encroachers. The order dtd. 13/9/2016/14/9/2016 discloses that notice was served and the encroachers had sought 5 days time. The order dtd. 20/9/2016 says that encroachers have not removed the encroachment, thus, a direction was given that the same should be removed by applying force with the help of the district administration. Only notice available in the record is the notice which has been received by the petitioner contained in Annexure 2 dtd. 10/9/2016. However, that notice merely directs the petitioner to remove encroachment otherwise the same would be removed forcibly. There is no notice under Sec. 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). There is no order passed under Sec. 6 of the Act. Annexure 2 is neither in the Form I nor in the Form II. The petitioner?s grievance is that he has purchased plot no.454 through registered deed in the year 2006 and under the garb of this encroachment proceeding he is being dispossessed from his land.