Heard Mr. B.S. Lal, Learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Vishal Kishore, counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, G.P. VI, counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel appearing for the private-respondent no. 6 and 7.

4. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners for the following reliefs:-

(a) For quashing the order dated 14.05.2010 passed in Case No.1/2008-09 by the Anchal Adhikari, Bagodar as contained in Annexure-24 of the writ petition.

(b) For quashing the appellate order dated 25.11.2011 passed in File No. 21/2010 by the District Collector, Giridih as contained in Annexure-25 of the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits as follows:-

(a) The land in question is in the occupation of the petitioners since 1939 and they are doing business activities on the land in question. The property is recorded as gairmajarua Khas in the record of rights. The ex-landlord had settled the land in favour of the father of the petitioner no.1 and four others as back as in the year 1939 and parcha was also issued. Rent receipt was issued by the ex-landlord and the state of Bihar duly recognized the petitioner as Raiyat and issued rent receipt.

(b) A proceeding under Section 3 of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 was initiated against the petitioners and others and at the stage Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 filed a writ petition being W.P.C No.4735 of 2008 challenging the proceeding.

(c) The said writ petition being W.P.(C). No. 4735/ 2008 was disposed of vide order dated 8th January, 2010. The counsel for the petitioner referred to Para-2 to 6 of the said order which is quoted herein below for ready reference:-

“2. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent-State has stated that under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act, 1956” for the sake of brevity) proceedings have been initiated for the purposes of widening of the road and it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the proceedings will be completed as early as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court and the petitioner should also cooperate with the hearing. It is also fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that till the proceedings under the Act, 1956 are finally decided, the structure, in question, will not be demolished/disturbed.

3. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent nos.6 and 7, has vehemently submitted that the petitioner are the encroachers and they are not the owners of the property, in question, and several misleading statements have been made by the petitioner.

4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the proceedings under the Act, 1956 have already been initiated by the state and it has been assured by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the said proceedings will be completed as early as possible and practicable, preferably within ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or their representatives as well as after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties, including respondent nos. 6 and 7 and looking to the assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that meanwhile the structure, in question, will not be demolished/disturbed. I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand and its authorities to hear and decide the proceedings under the Act, 1956, as early as possible and practicable, preferably within ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or to their representatives as well as after giving an adequate opport