Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 10.11.2023 and 23.12.2023, passed by the District Magistrate-cum- Second Appellate Authority, Patna in Second Appeal No. 428118028092203512/2A, whereby and whereunder the Circle Officer, Punpun has been directed to ensure that the land in question is made free from encroachment.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner purchased a land appertaining to Khata No.166, Survey Khesra No. 839, Thana No.57, situated at Mauja-Manorah from one Sarojani Devi, by means of a sale deed bearing sale deed no. 6528 dated 04.09.2020, registered under the District Registry Office, Patna. In fact, the petitioner also claims to be a bonafide owner of a part of the land, appertaining to Khata No.133, Khesra No. 842, Thana No.57, situated at Mauja-Manorah and 2.171 decimal land thereof, has been stated to have been mutated in the name of the petitioner as also Jamabandi No. 61 is existing in his name.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Vikram Kumar is stated to have filed a complaint under the provisions of the Bihar Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2015'), inter alia alleging therein that encroachment has been made over 88 decimals of land, appertaining to Plot No. 133, Khesra No. 842, Thana No. 57, Mauza-Manorah, leading to filing of a second appeal, as aforesaid, wherein the second appellate authority, by the impugned orders dated 10.11.2023 and 23.12.2023, has directed the Circle Officer, Punpun to remove the encroachment in question. It is contended that neither the petitioner has ever been informed nor communicated about the aforesaid proceedings in question and by an ex parte order as also behind the back of the petitioner, the Second Appellate Authority has directed for removal of the encroachment in question. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the land in question and the same is his raiyati land, hence there is no question of the petitioner having made any encroachment. Another aspect of the matter, canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the provision of the Act, 2015, no directions can be issued for removal of encroachment inasmuch as in case any encroachment has been made over the public land/gairmajarua aam land, the same has to be dealt with under the provision of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1956').

4. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent-State and for the private respondent no. 11 have though tried to support the impugned orders dated 10.11.2023 and 23.12.2023, passed by the District Magistrate, Patna-cum-Second Appellate Authority, however, they have not been able to deny the fact that under the garb of the Act, 2015, no complaint pertaining to encroachment made over public/ government land can be entertained much less any order can be passed by the concerned authority for removal of the encroachment in question and if at all encroachment has been made over a public land, the same is required to be dealt with under the provision of the Act, 1956.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the definition of "complaint" as defined under Section 2(a) of the Bihar Right to Public Grievance Redressal, Act, 2015 herein below:—

"2(a). Complaint means any application made by a citizen or a group of citizens to a Public Grievance Redressal Officer for seeking any benefit or relief relating to any schemes, programme or services run in the State by the State Government or in respect of failure or delay in providing such benefit or relief, or regarding any matter arising out of failure in the functioning of, or violation of any law, policy, service, programme or scheme in force in the State by a public authority but does not