The court upheld the refusal to interfere with eviction notices under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, emphasizing the need for petitioners to establish their claims before the authority.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.)

The above appeals arise from three writ petitions respectively; C.W.J.C. No.17689 of 2022 by two writ petitioners, C.W.J.C. No.17688 of 2022 by 37 writ petitioners and C.W.J.C. No. 8727 of 2024 by one writ petitioner. The appellants are aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which refused interference to the show-cause notices issued under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘Encroachment Act’) in encroachment cases before the Circle Officer, Purnea East. There was also allegation in CWJC No.17689 of 2024 that some structures were forcibly demolished without proper notice, even under the Encroachment Act.

2. The identical contention raised by the different petitioners was that the very same property was twice attempted to be evicted under the Public Land Encroachment Act, once in the year 1953 and then in the year 1973, both of which were resisted by the land-owners; at the first instance by the predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioners. At the first instance, it was categorically found by the various hierarchical authorities under the Encroachment Act; except the first appellate authority, the Collector, that there was no ground to proceed summarily for eviction. The next attempt was made in the year 1973 which was resisted by the land owners in a writ petition, successfully. In 2013 also, a proceeding was initiated which was not however continued. The present proceedings are in the year 2023.

3. Sri Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the appellants in L.P.A. No.883 of 2024 and 889 of 2024 and Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for the appellants in L.P.A. No.926 of 2024. Sri Y.V. Giri had the compelling argument of res judicata and no summary proceeding under the Encroachment Act being permissible; if there is found a semblance of right on the lands, as proved by the petitioners. The earlier proceedings ended in favor of the petitioners and there is no reason to initiate a further proceeding for eviction under the Encroachment Act; in which complicated and disputed questions of title and possession cannot be decided. The learned Counsel has placed before us a number of decisions to canvas both the grounds urged; of resjudicata & the summary proceedings being impermissible. It is the argument of the learned Senior Counsel and the other learned Counsel who adopted all the aforestated arguments, that if at all the State has a valid claim over the properties, then it is for the State to approach the appropriate Civil forum, as has been held by another Division Bench with respect to the very same properties in Ritlal Chaudhary and Others v. The District Magistrate Purnea, 1997 (25) BLJR 581.

4. Arbitrary and peremptory demolition of structures cannot be a handy substitute for eviction of tenants and lessees and there should necessarily be a decree of a Civil Court obtained to effect such eviction. Reliance was placed on M/s Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation v. State of Bihar; AIR 1996 Patna 163 and Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik v. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another; 1999 (1) PLJR 1. Even mere possession of property, if settled for a long time, despite absence of a right to remain, eviction can be only after recourse to law, as has been held in Sopan Sukhdev Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner; (2004) 3 SCC 137 and Krisha Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131. On general principles of res judicata, the decision in Ritlal Chaudhary (supra) was urged and to buttress the ground, Gulabchand Chotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat; AIR 1965 SCC 1153 was also cited at the Bar.

5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State would assert that there is rank encroachment by the petitioners into the lands belonging to the National Highway Authority of India (for brevity ‘N.H.A.I.’). The 170 feet wide road narrows to 60 feet due to the encroachments within Purnea which has led to the powers under th