Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 31.05.2022 issued by the Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BIADA’) i.e. the respondent no. 8 herein, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been given final notice to vacate the premises situated on the ground floor of the Udyog Bhawan, within three days, where the petitioners are stated to be running their book stalls illegally, failing which it has been directed that the said place shall be cleared with the help of administration. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the notice dated 22.05.2022, issued by the district administration, directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment and vacate the premises of Udyog Bhawan.

2. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the present writ petition qua the petitioner no. 1 has stood disposed off as not pressed inasmuch as he has filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 69 of 2021, which is pending before the Ld. Court of Munsif-1, Patna, however, with liberty to him to pursue the said suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioners, are that they are lawful tenants of BIADA and are poor people who are engaged in selling books through their book stalls situated in the campus of BIADA, located at Udyog Bhawan since the past several decades. It is also submitted that the petitioners were the successful applicants who were allotted 28 shops based on tender auction process, which took place in the year 2007-08, whereby it was agreed that the petitioners will be given shops located at Plot No. 1138 and 1139 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4501/-, along with the facility of electricity/generator. The petitioners are stated to be paying rent since 2008 till date to BIADA. It is contended that the petitioners have been regularly depositing the rent amount with the respondents till the year 2020, when the COVID pandemic broke out and due to lockdown they were unable to operate from the said premises for quite some time, resultantly they had suffered substantial financial loss. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 7 had sent legal notices to the petitioners in the year 2017, wherein the tenant/landlord relationship between the petitioners and the BIADA was admitted, however, eviction notice was issued to the petitioners on the ground that they had failed to pay the rent due thus causing wrongful loss to BIADA, had violated the terms and conditions of BIADA, had encroached the pathway of the area near the ground floor of Udyog Bhawan resulting in encroaching the unrented area of BIADA and had also illegally sublet the rented premises to unauthorized occupants.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that prior to issuance of the aforesaid notices dated 31.05.2022, directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment in question, neither any notice has been given nor any encroachment proceedings have been initiated, much less any recourse has been taken to the due process of law for the purposes of evicting the petitioners. It is also contended that no summary proceedings can be initiated in case of bonafide dispute of possession of the land/shops in question and moreover, the petitioners cannot be treated as encroachers and evicted in summary encroachment proceedings and no unilateral decision of eviction can be taken by the authorities in such a case, unless the title is decided by the competent civil court. It is also submitted that the aforesaid impugned notices do not contain any material to show that the petitioners are encroachers, for the purposes of invoking the jurisdiction vested under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as the “Act, 1956”). In fact a bare perusal of Section-3 of the Act, 1956 would show that reasonable grounds and materials should be available, for the Collector to presume that