1. There is a single petitioner in each of these six writ petitions filed against a common order passed by the Collector, Jehanabad in appeals arising from proceedings held under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (herein-after referred to as the 'Act').

2. The Circle Officer, Jehanabad initiated proceedings under the Act against nine persons (including, these six petitioners before this court) who are, in occupation of portions of plot no. 209 under Khata No.326 having an area of 43 decimals and situated at Mauza Makhdumpur Unta Madarpur in the District of Jehanabad. The stand of the proceedees was that they were in lawful possession of their respective pieces of land. But according to the State, Plot no. 209 was a public land over which they have made unauthorised encroachments. The Circle Officer, by separate orders passed in each of the nine proceedings, rejected the defences raised by the proceedees and directed for their removal from the pieces of land under their respective occupations.

3. It appears that against the orders passed by the Circle Officer, the proceedees jointly came to this court in CWJC No. 1729 of 1997. Though the order passed in that writ petition is not brought on the record, nor the directions(s) given by this court in that case is clearly spelt out in these writ petitions, it appears from the order passed by the Collector (coming under challenge in these writ petitions) that in the earlier writ petition (CWJC No. 1729 of 1997), this court, having regard to the fact that a statutory appeal was available to the proceedees, declined to interfere and left it open to the proceedees to seen their remedy by filing appeals against the orders passed by the Circle Officer. Pursuant to the direction given by this court in CWJC 1729/97 the nine proceedees preferred separate appeals before the Collector, Jehanabad against the orders of their ejectment passed by the Circle Officer, Jehanabad. The nine appeals thus filed before the Collector, Jehanabad were heard together but the main order dated 14.5.1998 was passed in Case No. 27/DM/96-91 filed by Onkarmal Khetan (petitioner in CWJC No.5568 of 1998). The other appeals were disposed of simply with reference to the order passed in the appeals of Onkarmal Khetan.

4. Against the orders passed by the Collector, Jehanabad six writ petitions.

constituting this batch of cases, were filed before this court. The remaining three proceedees are not before this court in this batch of writ petitions. The following table will indicate the numbers of proceedings and the areas of land in dispute in respect of each of the six petitioners.

No. of Writ Name of Case No. Appeal No. Portion of

Petition Petitioner before Cir- before Collector Plot No. 209 cle Officer in dispute

CWJC Nos.

5455/98 Manoj Kumar 176/96-97 32/DM/96-97 30' x 50' 5459/98 Dinesh Prasad 159/96-97 13/DM/96-97 12' x 42' 5568/98 Onkarmal Khetan 175/96-97 27/DM/96-97 55' x 83' 5741/98 Mahendra Prasad 170/96-97 30/DM/96-97 17' x 42' 5777/98 Kunti Devi 168/96-97 34/DM/96-97 20' x 54' 5794/98 Pratap Narain 166/96-97 33/DM/96-97 30' x 66'

Singh

Not before Manohar Prasad 171/96-97 28/DM/96-97 12' x 40'

this Court

Do Bhagwan Sao 167/96-97 29/DM/6-97 14' x 54'

Do Basudeo Prasad/ 172/96-97 35/DM/96-97 40' x 40'

Gayatri Devi

5. The case of the petitioners is that Plot no. 209 was the Bakasht land of the erstwhile Zamindar. The Zamindar made settlement of the disputed plot in favour of one Nishan Singh under a Hukumnama and at the time of vesting of the Zamindari, the name of Nishan Singh was shown in respect of the disputed plot in the return filed by the outgoing Zamindar. The rent receipts were issued by the State of Bihar in the name of the aforesaid settlee. Beyond Nishan Singh, the case of the petitioners tends to get rather confused and it is not quite clear whether they claimed to be the descendant of