Shyam Prakash Agarwal vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Surviving defects are ignored.

Heard counsel for the parties.

All these petitioners have approached this Court against a notice under section 6(2) of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (wrongly mentioned as 1975 in the notice). By the impugned notices, removal of encroachment from plot no. 169 village Gomo, thana no. 22 district Dhanbad, which is found to be a public land, are to be complied with within a period of 15 days. The respondent Collector under BPLE Act, Dhanbad is the author of the impugned notices.

Petitioner in WPC No. 1204/2016 claims to be the rightful owner of plot no. 161 under khata no. 126 mouza-Gomoh, P.S.-Topchanchi P.S. No. 22 district - Dhanbad devolved through a Registered Sale Deed dated 22.01.1959 from the erstwhile vendor. They are descendants of the vendee Jai Narayan Agrawal. According to him, rent receipts have been issued in the name of his elder brother Ram Kishore Agrawal and are regularly paying rent and are in peaceful possession over the aforesaid plot. He is completely oblivious of any proceeding initiated under BPLE Act, till the impugned notices were served on him in relation to removal of encroachment from plot no. 169.

Petitioners in WPC 1218/2016 are aggrieved by notice under section 6(2) of the Act of 1956 in respect of removal of encroachment from plot no. 169 of the area specified under the same village, thana no, P.S. And district. These petitioners claim ownership and possession over the property relating to plot no. 156 under khata no. 122 Mouza-Gomoh, P.S. Topchanchi P.S. No. 22 district - Dhanbad having an area of 15 decimals as descendants of common ancestor Motilal Sahu. Property is said to have devolved through mutual partition and after death of recorded tenants, petitioners stepped into their shoes and came in separate possession over the land. They are paying rent after mutating their names in Register-II and have constructed shops over plot no. 156. They feign ignorance of any such proceeding initiated against them for removal of encroachment prior to the impugned notice.

Petitioner in WPC No. 1219/2016 is also aggrieved by similar notice at Annexure-2 issued in respect of the same plot no. 169 for different area. This petitioner claims to have ownership of the land of plot no. 164 under Khata No. 158, Mouza-Gomoh, P.S. Topchanchi, P.S. No. 22 District - Dhanbad through a Registered Sale Deed dated 16.08.1942 from the previous vendor namely Abdul Gani. He claims to be the descendant of the vendee Ishwar Lal Sao and enjoying peaceful possession of the land as also paying rent in the Circle Office. He has also been taken aback by the impugned notice under section 6(2) of the Act of 1956 without any prior notice or any proceeding for removal of any such encroachment contemplated under the Act.

Petitioners in WPC No. 1220/2016 claim ownership over the piece of land over plot no. 1129 under khata no. 70, Mouza Gomoh, P.S. Topchanchi, P.S. No. 22, District - Dhanbad having an area of 64 decimals, being descendants of the common ancestor Motilal Sao like the petitioners in WPS No. 1218/2016. They are also enjoying peaceful possession over the land under the said plot after mutual partition and are paying rent to the Circle Office. These petitioners have also been slapped with the notice under section 6(2) of the Act of 1956 without any prior proceeding and notice. Therefore, they have approached this Court for interference.

As it appears from the averments in the writ petition and stand of the counsel for the respondents, each of the writ petitioners claim ownership over the plot which are different to the plot mentioned in the impugned notices i.e. plot no. 169. Petitioners therefore cannot object to removal of any encroachment over the public land comprising plot no. 169.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the process of removal of encroachment under plot no. 169, certain portion of the petitioners'' staircase have been partially demolished and they apprehend more coercive action during course of time, though there are no proceeding for removal of any public encroachment, nor their land is a public land.

From averments on record and submissions of the parties, it is evident that notice under section 6(2) of the Act of 1956 are directed in respect of piece of land under plot no. 169 of village Gomo Thana No. 22 district - Dhanbad to which petitioners do not claim any right, title, ownership and possession. Any removal of encroachment in respect of plot no. 169, in principle, cannot be objected to by the petitioners. However, respondent authorities while carrying out removal of encroachment on plot no. 169 of different area of different description, should not step over other land to which petitioners claim to be the owner, unless a valid proceeding under the BPLE Act, 1956 is initiated against the concerned person including the present petitioners in respect of plot in question, if such plots are claimed to be the public land by the respondents.

With these observations, these writ petition are disposed of.