Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. The writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of a writ mandamus, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and taking any steps for demolition of the pucca construction of the petitioners, raised over Plot No.5, Khata no.156, Touzi No.525 area 1 Bigha 1 Katha at Mohalla-Hajipur within the jurisdiction of Khagaria Municipality. Through the amendment petition, which has been filed subsequently to the admission of the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed that the possession of the Chabutra be restored back and the petitioners be adequately compensated for the harm and loss caused to them by the respondents during the pendency of the present writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that a chunk of land including the lands in question were purchased by one Harihar Prasad through different sale deeds in the years 1909 and 1912. The petitioners are sons and grand-sons of the said Harihar Prasad Sah. The copies of the sale deeds have been annexed with the writ petition and marked as 2 series. The lands were recorded in the name of the petitioners family in the revenue records and they have been paying rent to the Ex-landlords as well as the State of Bihar. After creation of the Municipality in the town of Khagaria, the names of the petitioners were mutated and they have been paying rent to the Khagaria municipality and getting receipts thereof. The petitioners as well as their father constructed residetial house and shops over the lands in question known as Gupta Market. The open land which was enclosed by a boundary wall, later converted into a Chabutra for use and benefit of the shop-keepers. There is a road about 20 ft. wide running from north to south, known as Thana road, just adjacent to the same. 3. On 17-1-1987 all of a sudden to the utter surprise of petitioners, the respondents started demolishing the Chabutra in question. The petitioners were shocked and surprised to see the adamantal attitude of the authorities. No notice, whatsoever, under the provisions of Sec.3 of the Bihar Public land Encroachment Act, was ever served to the petitioners for showing cause, neither there was any demolition proceeding with respect to the Chabutra in question. The petitioners were shocked and surprised to see the adamantal attitude of the authorities. No notice, whatsoever, under the provisions of Sec.3 of the Bihar Public land Encroachment Act, was ever served to the petitioners for showing cause, neither there was any demolition proceeding with respect to the Chabutra in question. When the oral request of the petitioners were not accepted by the officers concerned, an application to the same effect was filed before the district Magistrate, Khagaria, that the Sub-divisional Officer was went upon to demolish the Chabutra and the building of the petitioners. In the said petition it was mentioned that the Chabutra was in existence for 100 years and the piller of P. W. D. is there from which it was apparent that the said chabutra was not an encroachment. The prayer was made that the steps be taken so that no harm be caused to the building and Chabutra of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners, getting no relief from the authorities concerned, filed the present writ petition. On 22-2-1987 while adjourning the case for a month to enable the counsel for the State to seek instructions and to file counter affidavit, an interim order in the nature of status-quo was passed. Ultimately on 9-4-1987 the writ petition was admitted and it was directed that the interim order should continue. 5. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents was tiled on 71-5-1987. In paragraph-9 of the said counter affidavit it has been mentioned that the land over which the Platform was constructed is the Government land. The Platform has already been demolished. The measurement which the petitioners claim is not accepted because the Chabutra was already demolished. In the counter affidavit it has been submitted that the Chabutra, claimed by the petitioners, was actually constructed by the Jail authorities long ago when the Jail was running in the premises, which at present is known as Gupta Market. The steps for demolition was taken by the Government for widening the road which was in the public interest. It has been further asserted that although the land belonged to the Government but the petitioners had illegally raised construction and occupied possession over the same For removal of illegal possession and to avoid further complication they thought it better to remove the same thinking it bona-fide action. It has been further asserted that although the land belonged to the Government but the petitioners had illegally raised construction and occupied possession over the same For removal of illegal possession and to avoid further complication they thought it better to remove the same thinking it bona-fide action. From the counter affidavit it stands admitted that no land encroachment proceeding was initiated nor any notice, giving an opportunity to the petitioners was served for removal of the alleged encroachment. Mr. Shivkirti Singh, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that from the statements of the respondents, made in counter affidavit itself, it is clear that there was a bona-fide dispute regarding title and possession of the petitioner vis-a-vis the Government in existence. The moment, it is established that there was a bona-fide dispute regarding the title and possession of the government to any property, the Government cannot take unilateral decision in its own favour, that the property belongs to it and on the basis of such dicision, take recoures to summary remedy of demolition ami removal of the petitioners Chabutra. The question of title and possession has to be decided in a proper proceeding, if initiated in accordance with law. 6. While referring to the copies of the sale deeds, marked as Annexure-2 series, and rent receipts, the learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to impress upon me that the petitioners have got valid right, title and possession over the lands in question. According to the learned counsel, the respondents have themselves in the counter affidavit admitted that the Chabutra in question was in possession of the petitioners, It has also been admitted in the counter affidavit that it was not the part and partial of the road rather the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the Chabutra in question has been removed for widening of the road. 7. The stand of the petitioners that no proceeding under the Act or any other law has been initiated, was not controverted in the counter affidavit. It is well settled that any encroachment on the public land can be removed only in accordance with the procedure, prescribed under the Act. 7. The stand of the petitioners that no proceeding under the Act or any other law has been initiated, was not controverted in the counter affidavit. It is well settled that any encroachment on the public land can be removed only in accordance with the procedure, prescribed under the Act. Sec.3 of the Act prescribes the procedure for initiation of the proceeding, it says that : "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 the continuance of any public land, the collector may cause to be served upon such person a notice in the prescribed from requiring him to appear on a date which shall not be less than two weeks from the date of service of notice, to show cause". Rule have been framed under the Act. Rule 1 requires the notice to show cause under Sec.3 of the Act to be given in Form I prescribed in the Rules, section 4 of the Act enables the person on whom such notice is served to appear before the Collector and to raise any defence which he could raise as if he was a defendant in a properly framed suit from removal of the encroachment. Therefore other sections provide as to how the matter has to be heard and final order is to be passed. The aforesaid view is being supported by a case of "jagannath Jha V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1984 BBCJ 820 . 8 Now the next stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the demolition was in the public interest and for widening of the road, therefore, their action was bonafide and not in deliberate violation of the provisions of the Act. Since the land belong to the State, it was not necessary to initiate any proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the counter affidavit itself it appears that there was a bonafide dispute of title and possession. According to him, where there is a bonafide dispute regarding title and possession, the Government cannot take any unilateral decision even in a summary proceeding. In this connection reliance has been placed over a case of Government of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Thummala Krishna rao and other, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1081 . According to him, where there is a bonafide dispute regarding title and possession, the Government cannot take any unilateral decision even in a summary proceeding. In this connection reliance has been placed over a case of Government of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Thummala Krishna rao and other, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1081 . In the said case it has been held that the summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by Sec.6 of the Act, can be resorted to by the Government only against persons, who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is "the property of Government", it there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the properly belongs to it and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Sec.6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. 9. From the counter affidavit of the State itself, it appears that there is a bona fide dispute regarding the right, title and possession of the Government over the property. Therefore, in such a situation the action of the respondents taking recourse to the emergency provision for removal encroachment is completely unjustified. 10. Therefore, in the back ground of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the steps taken by the respondents for demolition of the chabutra in question, was completely unjustified. Tt has been admitted in the counter-affidavit that before the demolition, the petitioners were in illegal possession of the Chabutra in question and, therefore, action was taken for demolition in order to remove illegal possession of the petitioners. 11. As the action of the respondents in demolishing the Chabutra and dispossessing the petitioners from the same, has been held to be illegal, the petitioners in the changed circumstances are legally entitled to retain the possession of the Chabutra in question unless they are evicted from the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, it will be open to the District Magistrate, to take any appropriate steps in accordance with law. If any proceeding is initiated either under the act or under any other law, it has to be disposed of strictly in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any of the finding recorded in the present judgment. However, it will be open to the District Magistrate, to take any appropriate steps in accordance with law. If any proceeding is initiated either under the act or under any other law, it has to be disposed of strictly in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any of the finding recorded in the present judgment. Writ application allowed.