Order Petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 1 of the application and add Circle Officer, Benipatti as Respondent no. 4. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. This application is directed against an order dated 18.5.1993 passed by Respondent no. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has raised many contentions in support of his application. However, on perusal of the same it appears that the same has been purported to be in terms of a direction of the Sub-divisional Officer as contained in his letter no. 309 dated 12.5.1993 that the encroachment be removed immediately. 5. It is true, as has been contended by G.P. 6, that the petitioner has been given notice, but he did not appear. It does not mean that an order would be passed on the basis of the direction made by the authority who has no say in the judicial proceeding. It is well known that the proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act is a judicial proceeding and the Collector is a Court within the meaning of the said Act as also the provisions of the Evidence Act. Further, from the impugned order itself it does not appear that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the State that the land in question is a public land. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the learned Collector is directed to pass fresh order after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence. The petitioner shall appear before Respondent no. 2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and file show cause.