The central legal point established is the requirement to follow the procedures outlined in the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, particularly Sections 9 and 10, for determining public land and encroachment.

By the Court - The petitioner has challenged the impugned order (Annexure-10) dated 11.9.1999 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Dhanbad in B.P.L.E. Case No.9/1998-99, whereby learned Circle Officer has held that the land of Khesra No.432, 433, 471, 472 and 480 measuring a total area of 2.97 acres appertaining to Khata No.28 of village Kharikabad, P.S. Dhanbad is a public land and the same has been encroached upon by the petitioner. The petitioner has been directed to remove the encroachment. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the Collector, Dhanbad (Annexure-15) dated 14.3.2000 whereby the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed.

2. According to the petitioner, the land in question is within its boundary wall and is in possession of the petitioner since 1959-60. The plan was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad long back on 3.8.1972 vide letter No. 2020 dated 4.8.1972. The Anchal Adhikari, without taking into consideration the said approval by the Deputy Commissioner and the petitioner's long possession since 1959-60 and without taking any measurement in presence of the petitioner, arbitrarily held that the land was encroached upon by the petitioner.

3. It has been stated that the said land is a part and parcel of the lease land of the petitioner. The Circle Officer arbitrarily recorded his finding declaring that the petitioner has encroached the said land. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad which was registered as BPLE Appeal Case No.2/1999. The appellate authority also failed to appreciate the said legal and valid right over the land and the illegality of the proceeding against the petitioner and arbitrarily and summarily dismissed the appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Anchal Adhikari as well as the appellate authority did not consider the petitioner's valid claim and continuous possession over the land since 1959-60. They also failed to consider the earlier approval of the plan by the Deputy Commissioner and even without giving the petitioner proper opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing, arbitrarily held and declared that the land is public land and has been encroached upon by the petitioner. Both the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed.

5. Learned J.C. to G.P.II appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that land in question is beyond the lease area granted by the then Government of Bihar and has been encroached upon by the petitioner. The petitioner has also admitted that the land in question was not within the lease area and they had applied for extension of the lease to the extent of land in question. The land is in illegal occupation of the petitioner and comes within the definition of encroachment by the petitioner. Learned Anchal Adhikari as well as learned appellate authority have duly considered the said facts and have rightly directed the petitioner to remove encroachment. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned orders and no interference is warranted with the same.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. I also closely perused the impugned orders. The Anchal Adhikari has passed the order rejecting the petitioner's claim of approval of the plan by the Deputy Commissioner. It has been observed that the plan was sanctioned only with respect to the land which was given in lease to the petitioner and the same has no connection with the land in question. The petitioner's claim for long possession has no legal basis.

7. While coming to the said finding the Anchal Adhikari has not given any description as to which land was given in lease, what was the area of the lease and on what basis it is held that the sanctioned plan does not cover the land in question.

8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the