The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed statutory procedure and the legal principle of 'Expressio unius est exclusio alterius' in interpreting the statute.

Heard Mr. Najmul Hoda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, learned SC-19 for the respondent-State.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing of the Notice dated 04.01.2018, issued under the signature of Respondent No.3, the Circle Officer, Kishanganj, as contained in Annexure-6, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to submit his show cause on 24.01.2018 with regard to encroachment made over the land, appertaining to Thana No.144(57), Khata No.254, Plot Nos.554,733, situated in Mauza - Khagra, District - Kishanganj. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the Notice dated 24.02.2018, issued under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) under the signature of Respondent No. 3, the Circle Officer, Kishanganj, as contained in Annexure-7, whereby, the petitioner has been directed in Encroachment Case No.314 of 2017-18 to remove the encroachment from the land in question by 12.03.2018,, failing which, the same will be removed by deployment of force and the cost of removal of such encroachment will be realized by the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's residential house is situated over the land in question and it is further submitted that without passing any final order under Section 6(1) of the Act, a notice under Section 6(2) of the Act has been issued in Form-I, instead of Form-II. Moreover, the impugned notice, as contained in Annexure-6, does not bear any encroachment case number.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought attention of this Court to the order dated 25.07.2018, passed in CWJC No. 7225 of 2018, wherein, the Circle Officer, Kishanganj, in pursuance to the order of this Court appeared and confessed that in Encroachment Case No. 299 of 2017-18, no final order has been passed, though a notice under Section 6(2) of the Act has been issued. On that ground,, the impugned notices contained in Annexures 2 and 3 were quashed. However, the Circle Officer was given liberty to proceed with the matter from the stage of issuance of notice under Section 3 of the Act.

5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the District Magistrate, Kishanganj and the Circle Officer, Kishanganj respectively, stating therein that the land in question is recorded in the municipal survey as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar’, hence, the notice under Section 6(2) of the Act was issued. This Court feels that Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, learned SC-19 fails to satisfy this Court about any final order having been passed under Section 6(1) of the Act, before issuing the impugned notice under Section 6(2) of the Act.

6. It is well settled legal principle that when a statute provides for a particular procedure, for doing a thing in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that particular manner and not in any other manner at all. The aforesaid legal proposition is based on the legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius”

7. In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the case of Selvi J. Jayalalithaa Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2014) 1 PLJR (SC) 531. Paragraph no. 29 of the judgment reads as :

“29. We find force in the submissions advanced by the learned Attorney General that this Court generally should not pass any order in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice if such order violates any statutory provisions. We do not intend to say that it would be illegal to extend the term of the Special Judge, but that it is a matter within the jurisdiction of the State in accordance with the relevant law.

There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words, where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thin