The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of res judicata and the finality of dropped encroachment proceedings, which prevent the reinitiation of proceedings for the same land.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 11.10.2018 (Annexure-5 series) issued under Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short “the Act 1956”) to the petitioners by the Circle Officer, Chas-cum-Collector under the Act, 1956 (the respondent no. 3) in Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2018-19 alleging encroachment made by them over different areas of the land appertaining to Khata No. 67, plot no. 69, village-Mamarkudar, Thana No. 92, P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land appertaining to plot no. 69, Khata No. 67, measuring an area of 62 decimals situated in village Mamarkudar, Thana No. 92, P.S. Chas (M), District-Bokaro (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) was given by the landlord-Dharapati Bhattacharya son of late Sumitha Nath Bhattachartya to Smt. Rangi Mahtain wife of late Dhirju Mahto by way of “Jot Patta” executed vide deed no. 3457 dated 07.01.1940 and accordingly the rent was fixed by the landlord. She, thereafter, came in possession of the said land and by constructing a house over part of the same, started living with her family. The rest part of the land was utilized by her as open space and garden as well as for cultivation of vegetables. Late Rangi Mahtain was the great-grandmother/grandmother of the petitioners who being her descendants have been living peacefully over different portion of the land after mutual partition of the same. It is further submitted that after lapse of more than 75 years of settlement of said land in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 by the respondent no. 3 in Encroachment Case No. 03/2014-15. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioners appeared in the said encroachment case and filed their respective replies. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3, vide order dated 16.10.2015, considering the issue of encroachment of public land on merit and also keeping in view the opinion of the government pleader, observed that since the petitioners/their ancestors had been residing over the said land since 1940 on the basis of “Jot Patta” dated 07.01.1940, dispossessing them from the said land on the complaint of a private person namely Rajendra Mahato, would not be in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said encroachment case was dropped. However, surprisingly, after lapse of about 3 years of dropping the aforesaid encroachment case, the respondent no. 3 again issued the impugned notices dated 11.10.2018 to the petitioners under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 alleging encroachment over the same land. It is also submitted that once the land encroachment proceeding was initiated and after considering the issue involved on merit, the respondent no. 3 had dropped the same, issuance of the impugned notices by the said respondent are not only barred by the principles of res-judicata but are also illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has put reliance on the judgments rendered by Patna High Court in the case of Sri Kali Pd. Seal vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1969 (17) BLJR 254 as well as in the case of Mahanth Ramagya Giri vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1991 (2) PLJR 249 : AIR 1992 Pat. 82.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, which has been sworn by the respondent no. 3 himself, taking a stand that the present encroachment proceeding i.e. Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2018-19 has been initiated on the basis of enquiry report of Halka Karamchari, Chas wherein it has been stated that the petitioners have encroached the public land which is “Gair Majarua” in nature. The impugned notices dated 11.10.2018 have accordingly been issued to the petitioners calling upon them as to why the encroachment made over the said public land be not removed. It has also b