Judgment 1. The petitioner of C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) is the mother of the petitioner of C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R). In C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976(R), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexures 1, 6, 7 and 8. Annexure-1 is a notice dated 8-3-1975 from the Anchal Adhikari, Potka, District Singhbhum (Respondent No. 2) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he has constructed a house on Government land, bearing plot No. 158 of village Bara Bhuwri by encroaching upon the said land to the extent of 5 decimals. Plot No. 158 is stated to be a road. The notice was issued under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Annexure-6 is an order of Respondent No. 2 calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment. It appears that after the order as contained in Annexure-6 was passed, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge of Singhbhum at Chaibassa (Respondent No. 3) which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1975. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 19-3-1976. Annexure-7 is a copy of that order. Annexure-8 is the final notice after the dismissal of the appeal by Respondent No. 3 to remove the encroachment. 2. The petitioner in C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) has prayed for quashing of Annexures 1 and 2 to that writ application. Annexure-1 of C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) is Annexure-6 of C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R). Annexure-2 of C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) is Annexure-7 of C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R). The grounds taken for quashing these two annexures in this case are that the petitioner of this case was not a party to the proceeding, though she is a co-sharer in the house and resides in the house, a portion of which has to be removed. 3. In C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R) the grounds taken and which have been urged are that there were two reports of the Karamchari obtained at the instance of Respondent No. 2. According to the first report, there was an encroachment of only one link and according to the second report the encroachment was to the extent of 4 links. According to the first report, there was an encroachment of only one link and according to the second report the encroachment was to the extent of 4 links. It has been submitted that it cannot be ascertained by accurate measurement whether there is any encroachment or not if it is less than 5 links. In that view of the matter, there should have been no order for removal of the encroachment. The second ground which has been urged is that the petitioner in his show cause claimed that the house was built and was continuing in the same position for more than 50 years before the notice (Annexure-1) was issued and in that view of the matter, the petitioner has acquired a right on the land, even if there was any encroachment, by adverse possession and, therefore, there should have been no order for removal of the encroachment. 4. Neither of the two respondents (Respondents 2 and 3) has applied himself to the question whether the case of the petitioner of C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R) that the house was standing there in the same condition for more than 50 years was correct or not. While rejecting the argument of the petitioner that as the encroachment was less than 5 links, there should be no order for its removal, the learned District Judge has observed that it was not open to the petitioner to take up that point as he did not pray before Respondent No. 2 for getting the land re-measured. In our opinion, it was not necessary for the petitioner to make any petition before Respondent No. 2 for getting the land re-measured when, admittedly, the encroachment was less than 5 links. It is now well settled that if the allege encroachment is less than 5 links, it cannot be held with certainty that there is an encroachment at all. That is a question of law and if party is entitled to succeed on a question of law, it is not necessary for him to raise a question of fact. It is now well settled that if the allege encroachment is less than 5 links, it cannot be held with certainty that there is an encroachment at all. That is a question of law and if party is entitled to succeed on a question of law, it is not necessary for him to raise a question of fact. Since the encroachment alleged is less than 5 links, the orders for removal passed by Respondents 2 and 3 are bad and in that view of the matter we do not consider it necessary to examine the other point raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, that his claim that the house was standing there in the same condition for over 50 years has not been considered by Respondents 2 and 3. In the circumstances, it is also not necessary to examine the point raised by the petitioner of C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) that the orders must be set aside as she had no notice of the proceeding and was not made a party to it. 5. In the result, both the writ applications are allowed. Annexures 1 and 2 of C. W. J. C. 193 of 1976 (R) and Annexures 7 and 8 of C. W. J. C. 192 of 1976 (R) are quashed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.