The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for notices to be in conformity with previous court observations and to provide an opportunity for hearing to the affected parties before taking further action.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.4 directing the petitioner’s wife-Ragini Singh and one Urmila Devi, both residents of New Saket Nagar, Hinoo, Doranda, Ranchi to remove the alleged boundary wall by 10.09.2020 and to give information in that regard to the said respondent, failing which the administration would be constrained to remove the alleged encroachment and to take further action in accordance with law.

2. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 66/2019 before this Court assailing the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 in Land Demarcation Case No. 91/2018-19 whereby the police force was deputed for removing the alleged encroachment done by the petitioner over the public land. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.01.2019 with the following observations:

“5. In view of such submission, without entering into the merit of the claim of the petitioner and also taking into consideration the fact that as per Annexure-1 the petitioner has not been noticed, therefore, in absence of any notice it would not be proper to cast liability upon the petitioner by treating him an encroacher, therefore, the matter is remitted before the Circle Officer, Argora, Ranchi for taking a proper decision in accordance with law after hearing the affected parties who have been arrayed in the notice as contained in Annexure-1 namely Smt. Geeta Devi, Smt. Urmila Devi and Shri P. Bhardwaj as also the petitioner who is given liberty to place the document in support of his title along with the sanctioned map for its scrutiny by the Circle Officer, Argora, Ranchi to reach a rightful conclusion.

6. The Circle Officer, Argora, Ranchi is directed to take decision within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Needless to say that the Circle Officer, Argora, Ranchi after taking such decision, if comes to the finding that any encroachment has been committed by any of the parties, proper action shall be taken at his end.

8. With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.”

2. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid specific observations of this Court, the respondent No.4, without initiating any proceeding has again issued the impugned notice dated 07.09.2020 to the petitioner’s wife-Ragini Singh and one Urmila Devi directing them to remove the alleged boundary wall within three days.

3. Though the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed the counter affidavit, however, nothing has been stated as to whether in compliance of the observations made by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 66/2019, the respondent No.4 initiated any proceeding and provided an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties including the petitioner’s wife before issuance of the impugned notice dated 07.09.2020. In fact, bare perusal of the impugned notice dated 07.09.2020 suggests that the petitioner’s wife as well as one Urmila Devi have been straightaway directed to remove the alleged boundary wall so as to make the said part of the land encroachment free.

4. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned notice dated 07.09.2020 issued by the respondent No.4 cannot be said to be in conformity with the observations made by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 66/2019 and thus the same is not sustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The matter is once again remitted to the respondent No.4 to issue fresh notice to the alleged encroachers including the petitioner as well as the other concerned persons such as the respondent No.6 and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties, to take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy