ORDER :

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice as contained in memo no. 01(Mu.) dated 11.01.2022 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 4- the Circle Officer, Giridih-cum- Collector under the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short, “the Act, 1956”) under Section 3 of the said Act in B.P.L.E. Case No. 05/2021-22 calling upon the petitioner no.-1 to appear with original documents relating to land appertaining to Khata No.-39, plot no. 540, Thana no.- 78, Mouza- Rajpura, District- Giridih measuring an area of 0.40 acre (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”).

3. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that the land appertaining to aforesaid Khata and plot originally belonged to the ex-landlord namely Parsuram Tiwari who subsequently settled the said land measuring an area of 1.00 acre with one Umed Chamar on 26.03.1934 through raiyati settlement. Umed Chamar after coming into peaceful possession of the said land, paid rent to the ex-landlord and obtained rent receipts in lieu thereof. After vesting of Jamindari, Umed Chamar paid rent to the State of Bihar and rent receipts were issued to him from the Circle Office, Giridih. After his death, one of his descendants namely Bihari Das got the said land measuring an area of 1.00 acre in family partition. Accordingly, his name was mutated and entered in Register-II. Subsequently, Bihari Das sold the said land to one Sri Prakash Sahay by registered sale deed no.3445 dated 10.03.2011 and thereafter Sri Prakash Sahay sold 0.40 acre out of 1.00 acre of the said land to the petitioner no. 2- Dr. Rajesh Kumar and his minor son- Shrey Siddharth by registered sale deed dated 29.07.2011. Thereafter, they applied for mutation of the said land in the Circle Office, Giridih, which was registered as Mutation Case No. 1416 of 2012-13 and after due inquiry, the name of petitioner no. 2 and his son were mutated and entered in Register-II. It is further submitted that since then, they are paying rent to the State and rent receipts are also being issued to them. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 4 issued the impugned notice dated 11.01.2022 to the petitioner no. 1 alleging that permanent construction is being made over the said land, the nature of which is ‘Gair Majarua Khas Parti Kadim’ and therefore, direction has been given to her to appear with original documents in support of her claim over the said land. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Jagdeesh, learned A.C. to S.C.-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition merely challenging the impugned notice dated 11.01.2022 issued under Section 3 of the Act, 1956. If the petitioners have raiyati claim over the land in question, they should have appeared before the respondent no. 4 along with relevant documents in support of the said claim.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the content of the writ petition.

6. The petitioners have contended in the writ petition that the land in question is not a public land so as to initiate a proceeding under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 for their removal from the same. In fact, the petitioners have raiyati right over the said land and are in peaceful possession over the same as after purchasing the said property from the erstwhile raiyats, the petitioner no. 2 applied for mutation of the land in question in Circle Office, Giridih, which was registered as Mutation Case No. 1416 of 2012-13 and thereafter his name as well as the name of his minor son were entered in the Register-II. However, the petitioners instead of appearing before the respondent no. 4, have directly filed the writ petition before this Court challenging the proceeding initiated by the said respondent under the provisions of the Act, 1956. In considered view of this Court, the petitioners shoul