The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prescribed procedure under the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 must be followed before taking any coercive action for encroachment on public land.

ORDER :

1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the eviction notice dated 17th November, 2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the Circle Officer, Gola- respondent no.2 has called upon the petitioner and his father to vacate the part of the land, appertaining to plot no.305, Khata no.92, measuring an area of 5 decimals of village Sosokalan, District Ramgarh, without affording any opportunity of hearing or following mandatory provisions of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1956’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20th June, 1929, a piece of land appertaining to plot no.305/572, Khata no.92, Mauja Sosokalan, measuring an area of 3.21 acres was settled in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather. At the time of vesting, the name of the petitioner’s grandfather, namely, Mathura Sahu was recorded in Register-II and, accordingly, he had been paying rent to the State Government. The rent receipts for the said land were being issued since 1965. The petitioner made an application before the respondent no.2 on 14th September, 2019 for issuance of rent receipt for the said land. The respondent no.2, however, issued notice to the petitioner on 6th January, 2020, observing inter alia that the Jamabandi of the land in question created in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather is suspicious and, thus, he was directed to appear before him on 17th January, 2020 with relevant documents. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent no.2 along with supporting documents. Thereafter, another notice dated 5th September, 2020 was issued by the respondent no.2 against Mathura Sahu (grandfather of the petitioner) and others in Suspicious Case no.02 of 2020-21, directing them to appear on 23rd September, 2020 and produce documents relating to the said land measuring an area of 3.21 acres. Thereafter, no communication was made by the respondent no.2 in relation to Suspicious Case no.02 of 2020-21. However, on 17th November, 2020, a notice was issued by the respondent no.2 in the name of the petitioner’s father as well as the petitioner (wrongly mentioning his name as ‘Rajesh Prasad Saw’ instead of his actual name ‘Rajeshwar Prasad’) calling upon them to appear before him on 2nd December, 2020 along with relevant documents after removing the alleged encroachment made over an area of 5 decimals appertaining to plot no.305, Khata no.92. It is also submitted that no notice under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 has ever been served upon the petitioner or his father. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing as mandated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1956 has been afforded to the petitioner or his father. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that no final order has been passed by the respondent no.2 in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 17th November, 2020 and the petitioner is still in possession of the land in question.

4. Mr. Rakesh Roy, learned A.C. to G.A.III, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that since the land occupied by the petitioner is public land, he has rightly been directed to vacate the same vide impugned notice issued by the respondent no.2.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition.

6. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be forced by the respondent no.2 to vacate his land without following the due procedure as prescribed under the Act, 1956.

7. A detailed procedure has been prescribed under Act, 1956 empowering the Collector under the said Act (respondent no.2 herein) to take steps for removal of encroachment from the public land. As per Section 3 of the Act, 1956, if it appears to the Collector from an application made by any person or upon information received from any sources that any person has made or is responsible for conti