AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This case is taken up through video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices (Annexure-4 series to the writ petition) issued under Section 3 of the Bihar (now
Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1956') by the Circle Officer, Gola- respondent no.3, whereby the
petitioners have been directed to vacate their respective residential premises within 24 hours.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are in lawful possession of their respective land and have been residing over the
same by constructing houses. Earlier also, a land encroachment proceeding was initiated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh against
Budhu Ghasi-common ancestor of the petitioners, vide L.E. Case no.110 of 1965-66, in which the respondent no.3 vide order dated 3rd September,
1965 was directed to make spot inspection and to see whether the said land could be settled to him without causing loss to the Government, as would
be evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition, however, no action was taken thereafter and since then the petitioners/their ancestors have been
peacefully residing over the said land. To the utter surprise of the petitioners, they received the impugned notices issued by the respondent no.3 under
Section 3 of the Act, 1956, straightway directing them to vacate their respective land within 24 hours failing which the structures made over the same
would be removed and cost of such removal would be realized from them.
The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that without following the procedure as prescribed under the Act, 1956, the petitioners
cannot be forced to vacate their respective land.
Mr. Barun Prabhakar, learned A.C. to G.P.III, submits that since the land occupied by the petitioners is public land, they have rightly been directed
to vacate the same vide impugned notices issued by the respondent no.3.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition.
A detailed procedure has been prescribed under Act, 1956 empowering the Collector under the said Act (respondent no.3 herein) to take steps for
removal of encroachment from the public land. As per Section 3 of the Act, 1956, if it appears to the Collector from an application made by any
person or upon information received from any sources that any person has made or is responsible for continuance of any encroachment upon any
public land, the Collector may cause to be served upon such person a notice in the prescribed form requiring him to appear on a date which shall not
be less than two weeks from the date of service of notice.
Section 4 of the Act, 1956 provides that the person to whom notice under Section 3 has been served or any person concerned with the alleged
encroachment made over the public land has the right to appear before the Collector and to put forth his case in defence.
Section 5 of the Act, 1956 provides that the Collector shall provide opportunity of hearing to the applicant or the person to whom the notice has been
served or any other person who may be interested either in the encroachment or in the removal thereof and the said authority may take such other
evidence as may be adduced in that behalf. As per the proviso to Section 5, if the person on whom notice has been served under Section 3 or any
other person concerned in relation to the encroachment case fails to appear and to file show cause reply on the date specified in the said notice or any
other date to which hearing is adjourned, he may proceed to hear the matter ex- parte.
Section 6 of the Act, 1956 empowers the Collector to pass final order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the concerned person.
On perusal of the contents of the writ petition it appears that the respondent no.3 by reasons of the impugned notices issued under Section 3 of the
Act, 1956 has straightway directed the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question, which is not permissible under law.
The respondent no.3 is under statutory obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1956 as detailed herein above.
Hence, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent no.3 in the concerned land encroachment cases by 25th February, 2021 and to
file respective show cause reply in their defence. On filing of the such reply, the respondent no.3 after due consideration of the same and on making
enquiry, if so required, shall take appropriate informed decision, as mandated under Section 6 of the Act, 1956.
Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no.3, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned notices
(Annexure-4 series to the writ petition).
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.