A Collector under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act cannot decide a complicated question of title or a matter where a serious and bonafide dispute arises with regard to the title of the land in a summary proceeding.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. These writ applications involving common questions of law and facts with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. Although the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner is common in all the cases and the orders passed by the Circle Officer are being different and the annexures are also being different. The orders impugned in each of the writ applications are being reproduced herein belows : -

2_1051_BLJ1_1988.htm

3. The facts of each case except in C, W. J. C. No.2071 of 1982 are common. However, the representing matrix of facts would be considered from the records of C. W. J. C. No.1579 of 1982. In each case a proceeding was initiated by the respondent No.2 (the Circle Officer) in purported exercise of its powers conferred upon him under Sec.3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroach ment Act, 1956. The petitioners in each case contended that the land in question being a portion of plot No.520 was recorded as Parti Kadim and the Ex-landlord of Handwa Estate settled different portions of lands by Pattas granted to the petitioners of each case except in C. W. J. C. No.2071 of 1982. The names of the petitioners in each case was entered in Register 11 and on payment of rent for the same, rent receipts were granted therefor. It is also the case of the petitioners that after vesting of the aforementioned Estate in the State of Bihar, the Ex-landlord submitted a return under the provisions of the Bihar Land reforms Act, 1950 in which specific mention was made about the settlement granted to the petitioners. However, in C. W. J. C. No.2071 of 1982, the name of the petitioner thereof was not entered in Register II maintained by the State of bihar nor any rent receipts was granted to him by the State of Bihar.

4. It may further be stated that in most of the cases during the table survey of Basukinath in the year 1964, the possession of the petitioners was found and in most of the cases, proceedings under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act were initiated against the petitioners and the said proceedings were dropped. However, the respondent No.2 inspite of the fact that earlier proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act were dropped, initiated fresh proceedings as against the petitioners and in each case issued notice directing the respective petitioner to show cause as to why the alleged encroachment made shall not be removed.

5. In each writ applications, the details whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore, the respondent No, 2 directed the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment from the lands in question in purported exercise of his power conferred upon him under Sec.6 of the Bihar Public Land Act, 1956.

6. The petitioner (s) in each case preferred an appeal from the afore mentioned orders passed by the Circle Officer to the court of the Deputy commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner acting as an appellate authority dismissedthe said appeal.

7. By reason of the impugned orders, the respondents no.2 and 3 purported to have held that the lands in question vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and, therefore, the lands in question are Public Lands.

7-A. It will not be out of place to mention that one Parmeshwari Sahuain had filed a suit against the State of Bihar and others in the Court of Subordinate judge, Dumka, which was ultimately transferred to the court of 2nd Addl. Subordinate Judge, Dumka in the district of Santhal Pargana for disposal. The said title suit was marked as Title Suit no.48/69/8/72. The aforementioned suit also arose out of an order passed in a proceeding under Sec.6 of the Bihar public Land Encroachment Act being Encroachment Case no.88 of 1955-56. In the said suit also the aforementioned Plot no.520 of Mauja Basukinath was involved. In the said suit settlement granted in favour of the plaintiff thereof was questioned by the