Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2021, passed by the Circle Officer, Tardih, District-Darbhanga, i.e. the Respondent No. 5, in connection with Encroachment Case No. 1 of 2021 as also for quashing the appellate order dated 26.7.2022, passed by the learned Court of Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga, in Encroachment Appeal Case No. 1 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to pay compensation for illegally demolishing the boundary wall of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the dispute in question pertains to land of the petitioner, situated at Thana No. 357, old Plots No. 1036 and 1037, corresponding to new Plots No. 1623 and 1624, Khata No. 388, ad-measuring 3 decimals and 5 decimals respectively. It is stated that admittedly, the aforesaid lands have been recorded in the revisional survey khatiyan as Anabad Sarvsadharan and the nature of the land has been shown as purani parti, however, adjacent to the said plots, the raiyati land of the petitioner, appertaining to Plot No. 1625, is situated, however, the same is being used by the local people as rasta since several years, hence, in lieu thereof, the petitioner was given possession over part of Plot No. 1624. It is stated that one co-villager of the petitioner, namely, Bhavesh Narayan Choudhary, had made a complaint to the Circle Officer, Manigachi, for removal of the alleged encroachment made by the petitioner over Plots No. 1036 and 1037, corresponding to new Plots No. 1623 and 1624, leading to initiation of encroachment proceedings by the Circle Officer, Manigachi, vide Encroachment Case No. 7 of 1996-97, nonetheless, the aforesaid factum of the petitioner having permitted the Respondent State authorities to use his raiyati land, situated over Plot No. 1625 and in lieu thereof, the State authorities having permitted the petitioner to use / occupy Plot No. 1623 and part of Plot No. 1624 was accepted by the Circle Officer, Manigachi, which led to passing of the final order dated 22.01.1997, in connection with Encroachment Case No. 7 of 1996-97, wherein it has been held that the ancestors of the petitioner had been residing by constructing a house over the land in question, appertaining to Plot No. 1623 and part of Plot No. 1624, since about 35 years, hence, legally, they have also perfected their right, title and interest over the said land by way of adverse possession, apart from the fact that the land of the petitioner/his ancestor has been used as rasta, hence, they have been permitted to use Plot No. 1036 and part of Plot No. 1037, corresponding to new Plots No. 1623 and 1624, thus the said encroachment proceeding was dropped by the Respondent No. 5.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that despite the Circle Officer, Manigachi, having dropped the encroachment proceeding, initiated vide Encroachment Case No. 7 of 1996-97, by an order dated 22.1.1997, yet again an encroachment proceeding was initiated by the Respondent No. 5 vide Encroachment Case No. 1 of 2021 for removal of encroachment made by the petitioner/his ancestor over the land appertaining to Khata No. 388, Khesra No. 1036 and 1037 (old), corresponding to Khesra No. 1623 and 1624 (new), whereafter he had passed the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 holding the petitioner to be an encroacher and having encroached land appertaining to Plots No. 1623 and 1624. The petitioner had then challenged the said order dated 22.12.2021 by filing an appeal before the Collector, Darbhanga bearing Encroachment Appeal Case No. 1 of 2022, however, the same has also stood dismissed by an order dated 26.7.2022.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a legal issue to the effect that since the earlier encroachment proceeding has been dropped by an order dated 22.01.1997, which has attained