JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Encroachment Appeal Case No. 03 of 2016-17 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed directing the respondent No. 4 to remove the alleged encroachment from the petitioner's raiyati land appertaining to part area of Khata No. 77, Plot No. 44, Mouza-Gorhimal, P.S+District-Godda, Thana No. 503, measuring an area of 0.0379 Acre [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said land’] within two months from the date of the order. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notice dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 4 in Land Encroachment Case No. 01/16 whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the alleged encroachment from the said land.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land appertaining to Jamabandi No. 74, Plot Nos. 44 & 42, Mouza-Gorhimal, P.S+District-Godda originally belonged to Raja Krityanand Bahadur Singh and others of Rajya Bandeli Estate, Godda. The said land was settled in the name of the petitioner's grandfather, namely, Shiv Shankar Thakur by way of ‘Kurfanama’ dated 15.04.1949 and thereafter he came in absolute exclusive possession of the same by paying rent to the ex-landlord i.e. Rajya Bandeli Estate for which rent receipts were also issued in his favour. After vesting of the intermediary estate, the ex-landlord filed return of various plots showing the said plots in possession of the petitioner's grandfather, who applied for mutation of Plot No. 42, which is adjacent to Plot No. 44 and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.09.1965 passed in Mutation Case No. 43 of 1965-66. Meanwhile, one Jagdish Prasad Srivastav made a complaint before the respondent No. 3 on 09.09.1964 against the petitioner's grandfather for initiating a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr. P.C. alleging inter alia that Plot No. 44 was illegally purchased by him and construction over the same was also being made by trying to close down the drain passing through the said plot, water of which flowed into a ‘Pokhar’ at Plot No. 46. On the basis of the said allegation, one complaint Criminal Misc. Case No. 375 of 1964 was initiated in the Court of the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and a report dated 01.12.1964 was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Godda Police Station in the said Court stating that there was no trace of any ‘Nala’ (drain) over Plot No. 44 whereas there was existence of ‘House’ and ‘Khalihan’ of the petitioner's grandfather since long and the same was also under his possession. On the basis of the report dated 01.12.1964, Criminal Misc. Case No. 375 of 1964 was dropped. Jagdish Prasad Srivastava again made objection during field bujharat operation stating that Plot No. 44 was recorded as ‘Danr’ in the last survey which was illegally purchased by the petitioner's grandfather and others. The said case was registered as Bujharat Dispute Case No. 02 of 1967 in the Court of the respondent No. 4 which was decided vide order dated 18.05.1967 holding that a ‘Nala’ had been left out in southern side of the house of the petitioner's grandfather providing outlet of rain water. It was further held that Plot No. 44 was in continuous possession of the petitioner's grandfather. Another complaint was made before the respondent No. 4 on 29.04.1975 by one Rani Bala Devi, wife of Jagdish Prasad Srivastava alleging that there was a drain adjacent to the ‘Pokhar’ at Plot No. 46 which was encroached by influential persons. On the basis of the said complaint, Land Encroachment Case No. 17 of 1975-76 was instituted whereupon an enquiry was conducted and it was found that there was no trace of ‘Danr’ (drain) over Plot No. 44 which had been in possession of the petitioner's grandfather since long. The said land encroachment case was finally dropped vide order d