Madhuresh Prasad, J. – The writ application has been filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for setting aside the encroachment proceedings arising out of notice issued to the petitioners under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), bearing Encroachment Case Number 1 of 2018-19.

2. Show cause notice has been issued calling upon the petitioners to reply as to why orders may not be passed against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act for prevention and removal of encroachment, from the lands pertaining to Khata No. 432, bearing Plot Nos. 1651 and 1652, situated at village Main (Bela), P.S. Belaganj, Thana No. 104 in the District of Gaya, as the same are public lands as per entry in the revenue records.

3. We at the very outset enquired from the petitioners’ learned counsel whether the writ petition as a PIL would be maintainable, having regard to the personal nature of relief arising out of encroachment proceedings against the petitioners, treating them as encroachers on public lands?

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a decree in respect of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners in Suit Case No. 319 of 1978 dated 07.08.1986 by the "Competent Court". Consequent thereto, the respondent-State Authorities have been receiving land rent with respect to the same lands.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the petitioners’ claim is based on an alleged judgment dated 04.01.1986 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in Suit No. 319/78 under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The validity of which, as per the State’s case, is doubtful and disputed. There is no incorporation of such order/judgment dated 07.08.1986 in the Khatiyan available in the Anchal/Circle Office. However, the same has been incorporated in Khatiyan of the record room, 30 years later i.e. on 29.08.2016, that also without taking any permission from the competent authority (Collector of the District).

6. The consequential issuance of alleged land rent receipts in favour of the petitioners has also thus been doubted by the State Authorities in the counter-affidavit.

7. On consideration of rival submissions, it is more than obvious that the petitioners have raised their private/personal grievance arising out of a show cause notice under Section 3 of the Act alleging the petitioners to be encroachers. The issue raised by the petitioners is based on their disputed claim to right, title and interest over the lands in question. It is trite law that resort to writ proceedings in respect of such disputed claims regarding declaration of right, title and interest, is normally impermissible.

8. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and maintainability of writ petition seeking to assail a show cause notice is also well settled. From perusal of decisions of the Apex Court, in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 as well as in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, it is apparent that a writ petition seeking to assail a show cause notice ordinarily is considered as being premature and not maintainable, subject, however, to some very rare and exceptional cases where a show cause notice is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise illegal. It is trite law that mere show cause notice does not infringe anyone’s right and only when the final order, adversely affecting a party, is passed that he can allege any grievance. There are, however, exceptions as taken note of above.

9. Instant case obviously is not one, coming within the exceptional circumstance, warranting interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. It is not that the District Magistrate does not have any jurisdiction to issue notice under the Act. In fact the District Magistrate is the Competent Au