ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) in Encroachment Appeal No. 6R 15 of 2020-21 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders as contained in notices dated 26.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi (the respondent no. 4) in Land Encroachment Case No. 37 of 2017-18, has been dismissed upholding the orders as contained in aforesaid notices issued by the respondent no. 4.

3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that one Kedar Nath Singh (landlord of the petitioner) purchased land under Khata No. 383, Plot No. 260, Sub-Plot No. 260/1B, area 25 decimals in village Pundag, Thana No. 228, District Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) through registered sale deed dated 10.06.1983. Earlier, the ex-landlord namely Shri Bara Lal Kandrap Nath Shahdeo had executed a registered Kabuliat vide Deed No. 6048 dated 15.10.1947 in favour of Bal Govind Mahto and the same was confirmed through Hukumnama dated 07.10.1948. The ex-landlord filed return showing the name of Bal Govind Mahto as raiyat and subsequently the name of said Bal Govind Mahto was entered in Register-II. The landlord of the petitioner namely Kedar Nath Singh purchased the aforesaid land through registered sale deed dated 10.06.1983 from the sons of Late Bal Govind Mahto and came in possession of the same. The said land was mutated in the name of Kedar Nath Singh vide Mutation Case No. 150R 27/1993-94. The jamabandi of the said land was also opened in his name and he paid the rent to the Government. Subsequently, another land adjacent to the said land measuring an area of about 1.25 decimals was also purchased by Kedar Nath Singh who entered into a rent agreement with the petitioner in the year 2013-14 for running a Dhaba in the name and style of “Haryali Dhaba” which is presently closed due to Covid-19 pandemic. In the meantime, two notices dated 26.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 were issued by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner’s Dhaba in Land Encroachment Case No. 37 of 2017-18 under Section 6(2) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short “the Act, 1956”). The said notices were served to the caretaker of the said Dhaba on 11.07.2020 whereby encroachment made over the land situated at Mauza-Pundag, Thana No. 228, Gairmajurwa Khata No. 383, Plot No. 260, measuring an area (Part) 20 decimals (hereinafter to be called as “the land in question”) was directed to be removed till 15.07.2020 failing which penal actions were to be taken. At that point of time, the petitioner was trapped with her family members at Muzaffarpur in lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic and as such she made representation dated 14.07.2020 before the respondent no. 4 through Whatsapp and a copy of the same was also sent to the respondent no. 3 through email. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1974 of 2020 for quashing the order contained in notice dated 26.06.2020 issued by the respondent no. 4, however the same was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal before the respondent no. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Encroachment Appeal No. 06R 15 of 2020-21 before the respondent no. 3, however was dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.09.2020. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 4 while conducting with the said encroachment case, did not follow the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 also failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 4 did not issue notice to the landlord of the petitioner who is the owner of the land in question and also did not provide opportunity of hearing to him