The competent authority under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (now Jharkhand) would take steps for removal of any encroachment after due notice and opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with the law.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The order dated 30.8.2016 containing the grievance of the petitioner is recorded herein below:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned notice (Annexure3) contained in Letter No. 408(B), dated 20.08.2016 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016 – 17, the Circle Officer, Sadar Circle, Chaibasa has chosen to evict the petitioner within 15 days without any proceeding in the eye of law.

2. The impugned Notice of eviction has been issued purportedly on account of cancellation of Jamabandi pertaining to Plot No. 90, Khata No. 303 under Chaibasa Municipal Ward No. 5, Chaibasa by an order dated 07.08.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa which is under Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan.

3. The petitioner contends that the instant piece of land has been purchased through registered Sale Deed No. 2157, dated 20.09.1994 (Annexure4 to the supplementary affidavit) and Mutation has also been done as per Annexure6, dated 07.09.1998, by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa. It is submitted that the proceeding before the Divisional Commissioner has been concluded but orders are yet to be passed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents – State prays for short time to seek instructions. 5.List this case again as unfixed case on 06.09.2016.

6. In the mean time, status quo as on today be maintained”.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 17.9.2016 with copy to the other side. It is not in dispute now that the proceedings under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 have not been initiated for removal of any alleged encroachment on behalf of the petitioner though the Circle Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa has issued the impugned notice at Annexure-3 dated 20.8.2016 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016-17 after the jamabandi pertaining to plots in question were cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa on 7.8.2012. In the counter affidavit respondents have taken a stand that the mutation of the lands in question was wrongly done by the then Circle Officer as there was no right and title of the vendor to execute sale deed in favour of father of the petitioner. It has also been stated that the plot no. 90 a to k area 1.01 acre and 748 bargkadi under Khata no. 303 of ward no. 5, Chaibasa has been recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar in the record of right published during current survey, 1972 with remarks as Dakhal-Awaidh Dakhal Dilip Prabal, Jyoti Prabal, Mihir Prabal since 1951. Annexure-A is the photo copy of the record of rights enclosed to the counter affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that in the absence of any proceedings under B.P.L.E. Act, 1956 (now Jharkhand) initiated for removal of the alleged encroachment, Respondents cannot evict the petitioner from the lands in question as it would be wholly impermissible in law. It is submitted that similar notices were assailed by the aggrieved persons in batch of writ petitions lead by W.P.C. No. 5088 of 2016 where taking into account the stand of the Respondents conveyed through the State Counsel on similar lines, this Court has been pleased to dispose of the the matter by directing the individual petitioners on the one hand to respond to the impugned notices before the Circle Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa within a period of 2 weeks taking all defence available in law and facts in support of their claim, while on the other hand categorically observed that the competent authority under the B.P.L.E. Act, 1956, on being fully satisfied thereafter would take steps in accordance with the Act of 1956 for removal of any encroachment by giving due notice to the individual petitioners in accordance with law. The present matter may therefore be disposed of on similar lines.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State also does not oppose such prayer in the light of the fact that no proceedings under B.P.L.E Act, 1956 has yet been initiated against the present petitioner. He submit