Judgment 1. This batch of seven writ applications questions the legal validity of a general notice issued by the ViceChairman of the Patna Regional Development Authority and published in a daily newspaper on 9-2-1996. The notice purported to have been issued in compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court directed the persons in unauthorised occupation of 57.72 acres of land acquired vide Land Acquisition case No. 63 of 1961-62 to vacate the said land from encroachment within 15 days from the date of publication of the notice otherwise the encroachment shall be removed with the help of Collector, Patna. The petitioners are land owners or their transferees claiming to be in possession of some of the acquired plots over which they had built houses and were living therein. The respondents are the State of Bihar, the Patna Regional Development Authority, the Collector and the Budha Grih Nirman Samiti. The petitions seek quashing of the impugned notice and for an order restraining the respondents authorities from interfering with their peaceful possession and from demolishing any structures on the disputed land in pursuance of the said notice. The respondents oppose the prayer. The writ application are being disposed of at the admission stage with consent. 2. The background of the initiation of the land acquisition case No. 633 of 1961-62 (hereinafter called as the "land acquisition case") and its chequered history for more than three decades in course of which acquisition was challenged both in this Court and the Apex Court on several occasion merit immediate attention. The Budha Grih Nirman Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the "Society") is registered under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. The Society moved the State Government for allotment of lands for a housing colony. An area of 25.09 acres was acquired by the Collector, Patna, on the direction of the State Govt. under the ordinary procedure and the possession thereof was delivered to the Society on 11-7-1962. It may be mentioned at the very outset that there is no controversy whatsoever with the acquisition of the aforesaid 25.09 acres of land. The Society again moved the State Govt. for another parcel of land measuring 32.48 acres of land in the vicinity of the lands delivered to the Society earlier. It may be mentioned at the very outset that there is no controversy whatsoever with the acquisition of the aforesaid 25.09 acres of land. The Society again moved the State Govt. for another parcel of land measuring 32.48 acres of land in the vicinity of the lands delivered to the Society earlier. The Patna Improvement Trust whose successor is Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") were also taking steps for acquisition of land for constructing a housing colony. In view of the proposed acquisition at the instance of the P. I. T. a notification was issued for acquisition of 64.49 acres of land in terms of Sec. 4(1) read with Sec. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as the "Act). There was, however, an understanding that out of 64.49 acres acquired for the Authority 32.48 acres would be allotted to the Society by the Authority. The necessary declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was published in the State Gazette in 1959 and after completion of necessary formalities for acquisition of land possession over 32.48 acres was delivered to the Society on 10-11-1959. The acquisition was challenged in this Court and by a decision in Deolall Rai V/s. State of Bihar, (AIR 1960 Patna 613) the relevant notification for acquisition was quashed leaving it open to the State Govt. for taking steps for fresh acquisition. In the light of the decision of this. Court the Government published a fresh notification dated 6-8-1961 for acquisition of the aforementioned 64. 49 acres of land situated in village Dujra and Rajapur. The legality and validity of the aforesaid acquisition were challenged before this Court in C. W. J.C. No. 812 of 1967 (Ayodhya Bhagat V/s. State of Bihar) and a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 8th May, 1968 dismissed the challenge. The judgment of this Court was challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1799 (N) of 1968 (Ayodhya Bhagat V/s. State of Bihar) and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court by their judgment reported in AIR 1974 SC 1886 . On or about 29-4-1967 the Authority adopted a resolution to handover 32.48 acres of land to the Society. On or about 29-4-1967 the Authority adopted a resolution to handover 32.48 acres of land to the Society. In 1972 the Government sanctioned an estimated amount of compensation of rupees thirty five lacs and odd but directed the Collector not to make any award until the full amount of compensation was deposited by the Patna Improvement Trust. The Authority failed to deposit the amount and on 14-9-1981 it passed a resolution not to acquire the lands in question except those portions which were acquired for construction of roads. It may be mentioned that as per declaration published in the Bihar Gazette on 7-10-1961 it had been mentioned that the acquisition was for the purpose of "Boring Road Development Scheme Phase 1" at the expense of the Patna Improvement Trust. The Society challenged the resolution of the Authority dated 14-8-1981 in this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3241 of 1982 (Budha Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd. through its Secretary V/s. State of Bihar). By its judgment dated 23rd May, 1984 this Court quashed the aforementioned resolution of the Authority. The said judgment was questioned by some private respondents in the Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by an order dated 23-9-1984 When the direction contained in the judgment passed in C.V. J. C. No. 3241/82 were not being implemented, the Society was compelled to file another writ application (C.V. J. C. No. 6373 of 1988) praying therein for appropriate direction giving effect to the direction of this Court contained in their judgment dated 23rd May, 1984 and for other consequential and incidental reliefs. A number of other writ applications (C.W.J.C. Nos. 8426 of 1988, 9000 of 1989 and 3720 of 1990) were filed by either owners or purchasers of the land in question which formed subject-matter of the land acquisition proceeding. The petitioners claimed that the Society were not entitled to any relief as prayed for in C. W. J. C. No. 6373 of 1988 since it had initiated an alternative proceeding by way of Title Suit and an application under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1966. The aforesaid four writ applications were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and disposed of by a common judgment dated 30-7-1993. The aforesaid four writ applications were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and disposed of by a common judgment dated 30-7-1993. The judgment of this Court dated 30-7-1993 passed in C. W. J. C. No. 6373 of 1988 and other analogous cases were challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeals with costs vide their judgment dated 31-8-1995 in Awadh Bihari Yadav V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 122 with directions, inter alia, that the direction and order contained in the judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3241 of 1982 should be fully and effectively implemented. 3. The case of the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No. 2591 of 1996 may be described in detail to provide a representative matrix of facts for appreciating the case of the parties in all the writ applications which are being heard analogous and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners who are five in number claimed to be original owners of plot Nos. 523 to 527, 627, 628 and 497 which were recorded in the names of their ancestors and over which they are in peaceful possession and have also built houses on some of them. The land acquisition proceeding in Land Acquisition case No. 63 of 1961-62 (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Acquisition Case") was stayed by the High Court by order dated 23-1-1962 passed in M. J. C. No. 65/ 62. The order of stay remained operative till 1-7-1964 when the cape was withdrawn. The petitioners alleged that it was during this period of stay granted by the Court that the Land Acquisition Officer clandestinely issued a certificate giving possession of 57.71 acres of land to an Assistant Engineer of the Patna Improvement Trust whose successor happened to be the Patna Regional Development Authority. The Trust and thereafter its successor the Authority have been characterising the said delivery of possession as "paper possession" and they had therefore been requesting the Collector, Patna, respondent No. 3 to make over actual and physical possession over the land. The Trust and thereafter its successor the Authority have been characterising the said delivery of possession as "paper possession" and they had therefore been requesting the Collector, Patna, respondent No. 3 to make over actual and physical possession over the land. In that connection the petitioners have filed a copy of letter dated 24-6-1972 addressed by the Chairman of the Trust to the Collector as Annexure-I. The petitioners claim that the land said to have been acquired in the acquisition proceeding remained with the land owners and a number of houses were constructed either by the land owners or their transferees over the land. As many as 1700 houses built by such persons are said to stand on the land today. In 1975 an agreement was concluded between the Society and the Trust to handover 30.02 acres of land out of 64.49 acres under acquisition for construction of houses for the members of the Society. The agreement contained the stipulation that the possession of the same had been delivered to the Society and the Society also allotted plots to its members by executing sale deeds in their favour without any valid right and title. The petitioners claimed that the transfer of the aforesaid 30.02 acres of land to the Society by the Authority acquired under the Boring Road Development Scheme Phase I was entirely against the purpose for which the land was acquired by the Government. The Society requested the Collector to remove the encroachments from the acquired land and the Collector published a public notice in the daily newspaper notifying that persons in unauthorised possession of the acquired land should vacate possession or remove encroachment or should file show cause failing which the encroachment shall be removed at the cost of the persons concerned. The notice dated 5-7-1984 was challenged by one Sri Jagannath Jha by filing C. W. J. C. No. 3482 of 1984 and a Division Bench of this Court found that the notice had been issued without any authority of law. The Court, however, held that the District Magistrate was entitled to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The judgment of the Division Bench is reported in 1984 B. B.C. I. 820. The Court, however, held that the District Magistrate was entitled to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The judgment of the Division Bench is reported in 1984 B. B.C. I. 820. "The Society submitted a list of 20/ persons said to be in possession of the land which the Society claimed to have got from the Authority in Land Encroachment Case No. 9 of 1984. The Land Encroachment Case was transferred to the D. C. L. R. by the Collector for speedy disposal and the D.C.L. R. rejected the prayer of the Society holding that 32.48 acres of land after its transfer to the Society by the Authority did not come within the definition of public land. The Society thereafter filed Land Encroachment Appeal No. 3 of 1993 against the judgment of the D. C. L. R. which was still pending before the Collector. A copy of the judgment dated 11-2-1992 of the D. C. L. R. has been filed as Annexure-2. The petitioners claim that during the pendency of the Land Encroachment Case the Society through its Secretary and Chairman filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1987 before the Subordinate Judge, Patna, against as many as 364 persons including the father and uncle of the petitioner for confirmation of possession and removal of encroachment. The petitioners have also referred to a writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 6373/ 88) filed by the Society for a direction to the State of Bihar and its officials including the Patna Regional Development Authority to give effect to the directions given by the High Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3241 / 82 by their judgment and order dated 23.5. 1984. It maybe recalled that the Society had earlier filed C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82 and in which this Court had issued certain directions in favour of the Society. 1984. It maybe recalled that the Society had earlier filed C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82 and in which this Court had issued certain directions in favour of the Society. The petitioners have quoted the prayer made by the Society in C. W. J. C. No. 6373/88 which reads as follows:- "It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to issue order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of mandamus against the respondents directing them to immediately hand over the vacant land out of the land forming the subject matter of the writ petition to the petitioner Society, (petitioner No.1) and further to direct the State (respondent No. 2) to complete proceedings in L. E. Case No. of 1984 within a period of two months and/or pass such other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper and direct respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that during the pendency of the final decision in this petition effective steps should be taken by respondents to see that there is no further encroachment and/or construction in/on the vacant land mentioned in Annexure-4 and direct the respondent to assist the petitioners to have peaceful possession over these vacant land."xx xx xx xxThree other writ petitions filed by land holders and the transferees from the land holders were also heard along with C. W. J. C. No. 6373 / 88 and while C. W. J. C. No. 6373 / 81 was allowed in part and a direction was given to the Land Acquisition Officer to complete and sign the award in terms of the order, the other three petitions were dismissed. It was also observed therein that the Subordinate Judge, Ist Court, Patna and the Collector under the Public Land Encroachment Act should dispose of the suits and the Land Encroachment Proceeding pending in their Court expeditiously. The petitioners have referred to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 122 whereby all the Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6373 / 88 were dismissed and the State of Bihar and its officials were ordered to complete the Land Acquisition Proceeding in the quickest possible time. The petitioners have referred to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 122 whereby all the Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6373 / 88 were dismissed and the State of Bihar and its officials were ordered to complete the Land Acquisition Proceeding in the quickest possible time. It may be recalled that it is in compliance of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court that the impugned notice dated 9-2-1996 purports to have been issued by the Vice-Chairman of the Patna Regional Development Authority (respondent No. 2) and a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 and which is sought to be quashed in these writ applications. 4 The Budha Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd, is respondent No. 4 in C. W. J. C. No. 2591/96 and they have filed a counter-affidavit with a request that it be treated as a counter-affidavit in the other writ applications. The petitioners have filed their reply to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 has also filed a supplementary counter-affidavit. In C. W. J. C. No. 2290/96 a counter-affidavit have been filed by the Patna Regional Development Authority-respondent No. 4 in which copy of the agreement dated 11-1-1975 between the Authority and the Society and copies of the correspondence exchanged between the Collector and the Authority have been annexed as Annexure-A to E. The Collector (respondent No. 2) and the District Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No. 5) in C.W.J.C. No. 2275 / 96 have filed a counter affidavit and the petitioners have filed their reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the above mentioned respondents Nos. 2 and 5 as also respondent No. 6 (Budha Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd.) which had served counter affidavit filed by them in C. W. J. C. No. 2591 / 96. The counter affidavit filed by one respondent in one case is to be read as their counter affidavit in the other cases as specifically prayed for on their behalf. The stand of the respondents in their counter affidavits and the reply to their stand filed by some of the writ petitioners shall be noticed while dealing with the case of the writ petitioners later. 5. The stand of the respondents in their counter affidavits and the reply to their stand filed by some of the writ petitioners shall be noticed while dealing with the case of the writ petitioners later. 5. The points involved in this batch of writ applications are more or less common and may briefly, be stated as follows:- (i) Whether the notice dated 9-2-1996 issued by the Vice-Chairman of the P. R. D.A. is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and whether it has been issued in pursuance of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 122 .(ii) Whether the land in question are public land after its transfer to the Society.(iii) Whether the State of Bihar and the Authority can eject a person in possession of the property for more than 35 years without taking recourse to law. 6 Points (i), (ii) and (iii) The impugned notice sought to be quashed in these writ applications is the notice copy of which is Annexure-3 in C. W. J. C. No. 2591/96. The notice was issued by the Vice-Chairman, P. R. D. A. (respondent No. 2) and it was published in a Patna Hindi Daily "Hindustan" in its issue dated 9-2-1996. The notice is in Hindi and its English translation reads as follows:- -Public Notice"In compliance of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7803 and 7821 of 1995 by Hon ble the Supreme Court, it is hereby informed to those persons, who are in unauthorised possession of 57.72 acres of land acquired vide L.A. Case No. 63 / 61-62 within Thana No. 4, Mauza Dujra, to make all the acquired land free from encroachment within 15 days from the date of publication of this notice, otherwise encroachment shall be removed from the acquired land by the P. D. A. with the help of the Collector, Patna. Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority".The public notice clearly mentions that it was issued for complying with the orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7803, 7820 and 7821 of the year 1995 and that it was in connection with 57.72 acres of land acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No. 63/ 61-62 lying in village Dujra. Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority".The public notice clearly mentions that it was issued for complying with the orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7803, 7820 and 7821 of the year 1995 and that it was in connection with 57.72 acres of land acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No. 63/ 61-62 lying in village Dujra. It informed the persons who were in unauthorised occupation over the land to remove the encroachment from the acquired land within 15 days of the publications of the notice and clearly stipulated that otherwise the encroachment shall be removed from the acquired land with the co-operation of the Collector, Patna. 7 Before considering the rival contentions of the parties with regard to the legality of the impugned notice it would be convenient to first consider the background in which the impugned notice was issued. The Collector addressed a letter dated 5-21-996 to the Vice-Chairman of the Authority copy of which is Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed by the P. R. D. A. in C. W. J. C. 2290/96. The latter was issued with reference to letter dated 5-12-1995 received by the Collector from the Authority. The letter refers to the judgment of the Apex Court dated 31-8-1995 (reported in AIR 1996 SC 122 ) which had upheld the judgment dated 23-5-1984 of the High Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82 and had given direction to the concerned authorities to take necessary action. The letter then refers to certain facts of the Land Acquisition case including the fact that 57.51 acres of land acquired for the authority had been handed over to the Authority on 6-5-1962 and hence title to the acquired land was now that of the Authority. The Collector also referred to the opinion obtained from the Government Advocate that the Authority were themselves competent under Sec. 84(4)(Ka) and 85 A of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act to get the encroachment removed. The Collector ended his letter after exhorting the Authority to take steps at their level for removing the encroachment in the light of the direction of the Apex Court. The letter also mentioned that in case the necessity of Magistrate and armed force was felt for removal of encroachment, the Collector may be informed for providing them. The Collector ended his letter after exhorting the Authority to take steps at their level for removing the encroachment in the light of the direction of the Apex Court. The letter also mentioned that in case the necessity of Magistrate and armed force was felt for removal of encroachment, the Collector may be informed for providing them. The Collector also addressed a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police vide his memo No. 112 dated 14-2-1996 copy of which is Annexure-C. The letter referred to a letter No. 560 dated 8-2-1996 of the Vice-Chairman of the Authority and mentioned that in compliance with the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court the encroachment from the lands acquired in the land acquisition proceeding have to be removed and illegal constructions on the acquired lands stopped. The Collector suggested that the Officer-in-charge of Budha Colony be directed to stop making of any further illegal construction. Copies of two letters addressed by the Director of Urban Planning of the P. R. D. A. one dated 26-2-1996 and the other dated 2-3-1996 both addressed to the Collector have been filed as Annexures-D and E. In both the letters a request was made by the Authority for providing pay loader and tripper for the purpose of removing the encroachments. 8. The question is whether the impugned notice has been issued in compliance with the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 7803, 7820 and 7821 of 1995. The judgment was delivered on 31-8-1995 and is reported in Awadh Bihari Yadav V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 122 as already referred to earlier. Sri Salve, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No. 2290 / 96, Dr. Sadanand Jha in C. W. J. C. No. 2311/96. Sri Ram Balak Mahto in C. W. J. C. 2275/96 and the other learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners in other writ applications argued that the impugned notice is not in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court and the P. R. D. A. with a view to get the encroachments forcibly removed illegally without following any procedure of law has issued the notice under the prevention that it was for complying with the orders of the Apex Court. The aforesaid contention has been controverted by Sri Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Addl. The aforesaid contention has been controverted by Sri Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents including the Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Sr. Advocate for the P. R. D. A. and Sri J. P. Karn learned counsel for the Budha Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti. The P. R. D. A. in its counter-affidavit (in C. W. J. C. 2290/96) have categorically stated that the Authority issued the general notice in the newspaper dated 9-2-1996 in exercise of its power under the relevant provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the P. R. D. A. Act) in pursuance of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The stand of the P. R. D. A. finds support from the contents of the correspondence exchanged between the Collector and the P. R. D. A. As a matter of fact the Collector in his letter dated 5-2-1996 (Annexure-B) mentioned the direction of the Apex Court in Awadh Bihari Yadavs case (supra) and also incorporated the advise given by the Government Advocate that the P. R. D. A. were competent to take action under the provisions of the P. R. D. A. Act to get the encroachments removed. The Collector-respondent No. 2 and the District Land Acquisition Officer-respondent No. 5 (in C. W. J. C. No. 2275/ 96) have stated that the acquisition of 57.71 acres of land has been held legal by the Supreme Court and the Collector had taken possession of the land acquired and possession thereof has already been given to the P. R. D. A. on 6-8-1962. The buildings and structures on the acquired land having been erected after taking over of the possession of the land by the Collector under Sec. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, such buildings and structures were illegal and the Collector being the custodian of law and order was duty bound to assist the P. R. D. A. by providing force and Magistrate. This obviously refers to assistance being sought for by the authorities of the P. R. D. A. from the district administration for removing the encroachments from the acquired land. 9. This obviously refers to assistance being sought for by the authorities of the P. R. D. A. from the district administration for removing the encroachments from the acquired land. 9. The Apex Court in Awadh Bihari Yadavs case ( AIR 1996 SC 122 ) (supra) were hearing Civil Appeals and Special Leave petitions arising out of the judgment of this Court dated 30-7-1993 whereby C. W. J. C. 6373/88 filed by the. Budha Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti and other three writ applications were disposed of by a common judgment. The Apex Court noticed the events that led to the filing of the C. W. J. C. 6373/88 by the Society against the State of Bihar, the P. R. D. A. and the Land Acquisition Officer for giving effect to the judgment rendered in C. W. J. C. 3241/82 and for other reliefs and for completing the acquisition proceeding in these words, to quote:"6. The Society wanted to acquire another block of 32.48 acres, the land adjacent to the aforesaid 25.09 acres. The entire controversy in this batch of appeals is regarding this acquisition, initiated under Sec. 4 read with Sec. 17(4) of the Act ("emergency" acquisition). The Notification relating thereto is dated 4-2-1959. The declaration under Sec. 6 was made on 4-5-1959. A writ petition filed in the High Court assailing the above proceedings was allowed with liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings afresh on 2-4-1960. While so, the Patna Improvement Trust (Patna Development Authority), (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), requested the Government to acquire 64.48 acres of Land in Durja and Rajapur villages for its Boring Road Development Scheme, Phase-I. The extent of 32.48 acres of land which the Society wanted to acquire and which proceedings were initiated under Section 4(1) read with Section. 17(4) fell within the area, which the Authority wanted the Government to acquire. A fresh Notification under Sec. 4 read with Sec. 17(4) of the Act, proposing to acquire 64.48 acres of land was promulgated on 6-8-1961. There was an understanding that upon acquisition, out of the above land, 32.48 acres would be transferred to the society A declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act dated 5-10-1961, appeared in the Gazette on 7-10-1961. As stated, the possession of 25.08 acres acquired under the ordinary procedure was handed over to the Society on 11-1-1962. There was an understanding that upon acquisition, out of the above land, 32.48 acres would be transferred to the society A declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act dated 5-10-1961, appeared in the Gazette on 7-10-1961. As stated, the possession of 25.08 acres acquired under the ordinary procedure was handed over to the Society on 11-1-1962. It appears that possession of an area of 57.71 acres covered by the later notification, was delivered to the Authority on 6-8-1962, Later, the Authority handed over possession of 32.48 acres to the Society. While so, in M. J. C. No. 65 /62, the High Court of Patna stayed the land acquisition proceedings. The stay was in force from 23-1-1962 to 1-7-1964 and the M. J. C. was finally withdrawn. It appears that the Society deposited with the Authority a sum of Rs. 1 million 7-4-1965. By letter No. 254 dated 18-1-1972 the Government directed the Collector not to make the award till full payment of compensation was deposited by the Authority. The acquisition was questioned in C. W. J. C. No. 812/ 67 in the High Court of Patna. The said petition was dismissed. The matter was taken in appeal to this Court. The appeal was also dismissed. The decision of this Court is reported in Ajodhya Bhagat V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1886 . The Authority did not deposit the entire compensation amount despite reminders. While so, on 14-8-1981 the Authority passed a resolution not to acquire the entire lands sought, except those portions which were required for construction of the road, it is stated that two awards were passed on 13-3-1982 for an extent of 4.47 acres and 3.32 acres only and the amount of compensation due thereunder were also paid. No award was passed in respect of the remaining lands. It is in these state of affairs, on 22-8-1982 the Society filed the writ petition, C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82, and assailed the resolution of the Authority dated 14-8-1981 and also prayed for a direction to the respondents therein to released the lands. The High Court of Patna by its judgment dated 23-5-1984 quashed the resolution of the Authority dated 14-8-1981 and also directed the District Collector to prepare the award. The High Court of Patna by its judgment dated 23-5-1984 quashed the resolution of the Authority dated 14-8-1981 and also directed the District Collector to prepare the award. In the said judgment, it was noticed that the Society was given possession of lands acquired under the normal procedure 25.08 acres, and also lands acquired under the emergent procedure 32.48 acres. The Court further found that since possession of the land had been taken, the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition. The validity of acquisition was upheld by the High Court which was affirmed by this Court and it was observed that the acquisition cannot be nullified, for not passing an award. The Court also noticed that there was unauthorised construction and encroachments, but, since the land vested in the Government and possession was taken over, no rights will accrue by such unauthorised construction and encroachments. It is seen that the special leave petition filed against the judgment of the High Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3240/82 was dismissed by this Court on 23-9-1984. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment an award dated 31-7-1984 was passed. The appellants contended that the proceeding dated 31-7-1984 is only a valuation statement and not an award. According to the respondents, the proceeding dated 31-7-1984 is in substance an award. The Society filed an application before the Collector under the Bihar Public Encroachment Land Act, 1976 against 207 persons. The Society also filed Title Suit No. 32/87 in the Sub-Court I, Patna, against 357 persons for restoration of possession by evicting the encroachers. "Their Lordships then proceeded to mention the objections of the appellants and intervenors against the Land Acquisition Proceeding both before the High Court as also in the Apex Court to be three fold namely:(i) The land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Sec. 11-A of the Act.(ii) The proceedings dated 31-7-1984 is not an award since it is not in Form 15 and is unsigned. (iii) The Society is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in C. W. J. C. No. 6373 / 88, since it has initiated alternate proceedings by way of title suit and application under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.The Apex Court then proceeded to hold (i) that the land acquisition proceeding in the instant case did not lapse; (ii) the proceedings dated 31-7-1984 is, in substance, an award, though it is not in Form 15 and (iii) in allowing the prayer of the Society in C. W. J. C. No. 6373/88 by a common judgment dated 30-7-1993 the High Court was only implementing its earlier order and direction in C. W. J. G. No. 3241/ 82 which it was bound to do in the circumstances and that the directions and orders contained in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82 which were not interfered with by this Court in special leave petition by order dated 21-3-1984 should be fully and effectively implemented. " 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners in course of argument were very fair to state that they were not challenging the land acquisition proceeding the legality of which has already been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court. What they challenged is the authority of the P.R. D. A. to issue the impugned notice. Their argument is that there is no direction of the Apex Court that the buildings and structures standing on the encroached land should be demolished with a view to remove the encroachment from the acquired land without following any procedure established by law. Another argument advanced was that out of 57.71 acres of land acquired 30-02 acres had already been handed over to the Society and the said land ceased to be public land and the authorities of the P. R. D. A. had no jurisdiction whatsoever to take any action for removal of encroachments found thereon. In other words the contention is that the P. R. D. A. had no title to or possession over 30.02 acres of land and had no legal authority to issue the impugned notice for removal of encroachments from the total area of 57.71 acres of land which includes the aforementioned 32.02 acres of land also. In other words the contention is that the P. R. D. A. had no title to or possession over 30.02 acres of land and had no legal authority to issue the impugned notice for removal of encroachments from the total area of 57.71 acres of land which includes the aforementioned 32.02 acres of land also. It was also argued on behalf of some of the writ petitioners that the Society was dealing, with the aforesaid 32.02 acres of land as its own and had allotted land therefrom to a number of persons transferring right, title and interest therein to the allottees. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that the entire acquired area of 57.71 acres belonged to the P. R. D. A. which alone had the title to the same and out of that 30.04 acres of land acquired for the Society by the Authority had been transferred to the Society but not the title therein. In this connection reliance is placed on a deed of agreement dated 11-1-1975 executed between the Patna Improvement Trust and the Society copy of which is Annexure-A (in C. W. J. C. 2290 / 96). The deed of agreement contained certain important recitals namely that only possession over 57.71 acres of land was transferred to the Trust and not the title and the full right and title over the said land will devolve upon the Trust on declaration of award by the Collector after the total cost of land acquisition including the additional cost is deposited by the Trust, It is also stated in the agreement that even if the agreement is executed only possession shall be deemed to have been transferred by the Trust to the Society. The respondents-State in their counter affidavit (in C. W. J. C. 2275 / 96) have stated that award has become final under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and a notice has already been published in the newspaper on 18th December, 1995 that the amount shall be deposited in the Government treasury if the interested parties do not turn up to receive the amount of compensation. It is said that this has been done by the District Collector and the District Land Acquisition Officer in compliance with the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble High Court under the provisions of the Act. It is said that this has been done by the District Collector and the District Land Acquisition Officer in compliance with the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble High Court under the provisions of the Act. It may be recalled that the Apex Court in Awadh Bihar Yadavs case ( AIR 1996 SC 122 ) (supra) had given a direction in these words, to quote : "12........... We, therefore, direct the State of Bihar, its officials, the authorities and other persons concerned who are seized of the subject matter of the instant land acquisition proceedings, to complete the proceedings in the quickets possible time."It may be recalled that this Court vide its judgment in C. W. J. C. No. 6373 / 88 and other analogous cases had issued a direction upon the Land Acquisition Officer to complete and sign the award in terms of the order dated 31-7-1984 in form No. 15 and take steps in terms of Sec. 12 of the said Act. The authorities had thus complied with the directions of this Court and that of the Apex Court in completing the formalities in connection with the land acquisition proceeding and had called upon the concerned persons to receive the amount of compensation awarded. In the aforesaid circumstances the stand of the respondents-State in their counter affidavit that there has been no transfer of land to any authority or institution on behalf of the State or the District Collector, Patna, and hence the title of the land still belongs to the State cannot be said to be without any basis. In that view of the matter only possession over the acquired land had been transferred to the Patna Improvement Trust the predecessor of the P.R.D.A. and as already noticed earlier the authority in their turn had only handed over possession of a part of the acquired land to the Society. The acquisition of the land by the State was for the Authority and not the Society and the Authority as rightly contended by them had only transferred possession over the land meant for the Society to the Society. Learned counsel for the respondents were thus on very strong grounds in submitting that the land acquired was public land and not the private land of the Society . Learned counsel for the respondents were thus on very strong grounds in submitting that the land acquired was public land and not the private land of the Society . 11 A Division Bench of this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82 had held that the acquisition was not for the Society but for the P. R. D. A. and in order to fulfil its housing plan the P. R. D. A. transferred 32.48 acres of land to the Society. With regard to the encroachments on the land the Court made certain observations in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment which reads as follows, to quote. "18. We went into a long exercise to find out whether despite encroachments, there was still land left for the petitioner Society to take possession. Our endeavours have come to a nought because of the encroachers and erstwhile land owners. Most of the land owners started claiming that there stood pucca structures on the land. Our efforts to avoid hardship proved an exercise in futility. At the time of handing over possession there were some encroachments. The Society took the lands with only those encroachments. The encroachments, however, cannot be allowed to become an elastic rubber tent which may be stretched from end to end of the acquired lands. If anybody has encroached or put up pucca structures after the notification foracquisition, he has done so at his own risk.19 Respondents 4 to 10 claim to have put up substantial structures on the acquired lands after purchasing lands from erstwhile owners. It was submitted on their behalf that they had built their house after their plans had been approved by the P.R.D.A. If they put up substantial structures without their plans and maps having been sanctioned by the P. R. D.A. and by all relevant authorities, they had done so at their own risk. This Court cannot protect them. If they have built with the sanction of the P. R. D. A. even then the act of the P. R. D. A. cannot bind the petitioners. The P. R. D. A. had no business to sanction the plans knowing full well that the lands had been handed over to the Society. The sanctioning authority must be held to have acted mala fide in sanctioning the plans. The P. R. D. A. had no business to sanction the plans knowing full well that the lands had been handed over to the Society. The sanctioning authority must be held to have acted mala fide in sanctioning the plans. The P. R. D.A. had no jurisdiction to take any action to have the lands handed over the the petitioners denotified. That would be mala fide in law, being contrary to the provisions of Sec. 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. We entertain no doubt that the Collector Patna and State authorities will lend their weight to removal of encroachments as early as possible. "It may be recalled that it was the judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. 3241 / 82 for enforcing the directions of which the Society had filed C. W. J. C. No. 6373/88 and in respect of which the Apex Court had held that the directions and orders contained therein (in C.W.J. C. 3241 / 82) which were not interfered with by this Court in Special Leave Petition by order dated 21-3-1984 should be fully and effectively implemented. As already noticed earlier this Court in C. W. J. C. 3241/82 had already held that "If any body has encroached or put up pucca structures after the notification for acquisition, he has done so at this own risk "and" If they put up substantial structures without plans and maps having been sanctioned by the P. R. D. A. and by all relevant authorities, they had done so at their own risk". Not only that their Lordships went on to observe that "This Court cannot protect them" and "If they have built with the sanction of the P. R. D. A. even then the act of the P. R. D. A. cannot bind the petitioners" as "the P. R. D. A. had no business to sanction the plans knowing full well that the lands had been handed over to the Society" and "the sanctioning authority, must be held to have acted mala fide in sanctioning the plans." It was only after making the aforesaid strong observations with regard to the land owners or their transferees having built structures on the acquired land that this Court went on to make the observation that "We entertain no doubt that the Collector Patna and State authorities will lend their weight to removal of encroachments as early as possible." All that the Court observed in favour of the owners of the land was that they will be entitled to interest upon value of their lands from the date of notification till the date of payment. It may be that after the judgment of the Apex Court referred to earlier the remaining formalities concerning the award have been completed and a public notice issued to the land owners to appear and obtain compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no action for removal of the encroachment can be taken by either the State, the Authority or the Society as the land encroachment case as also the suit filed by the Society were still pending. There is no dispute between the parties that the Society had filed Land Encroachment Case No. 9 / 84 under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act 1956 against 207 persons. The L. R. D. C. by his order dated 11-2-1992 copy of which is Annexure-2 in C. W. J. C. 2591 / 96 disposed of the proceeding taking the view that the land belonging to the Society did not come within the definition of Public land and as such the Court had no jurisdiction to order removal of the encroachment under the Land Encroachment Act. The Society have preferred an appeal before the Collector against the said order which is said to be pending. The Society had also filed Title Suit No. 32/87 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge-I against 357 persons for restoration of possession by evicting the encroachers. The Society have preferred an appeal before the Collector against the said order which is said to be pending. The Society had also filed Title Suit No. 32/87 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge-I against 357 persons for restoration of possession by evicting the encroachers. That Suit is also still pending. These facts were noticed by the Division Bench in C.W. J. C. 6373/88 and it was observed, to quote : "97. From the ordersheet dated 7-3-1978 it appears that this Court from time to time had been directing the Collector under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act to dispose of the encroachment proceedings. We are not aware as to what defence has been taken in the aforementioned suit and in the land Encroachment proceedings. It is accepted at the Bar that the said suit and the encroachment proceeding are still pending. The petitioners are, thus, not entitled to any relief from this Court not only in view of the fact that they had suppressed material fact from this Court which has a direct bearing on the subject matter of this writ application but also this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not allow two parallel proceedings to run simultaneously. " Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench case in support of their contention that until such time the land encroachment case and the Title Suit filed by the Society are disposed of, this Court ought not to allow the State, the Authority or the Society to get the encroachments removed. It was also argued that the Society ought not to be allowed to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. All that needs to be mentioned here is that none of the writ applications being heard by this Court in this batch of writ application has been filed by the Society; whereas the Society was the petitioner in C. W. J. C. 6373/88. Thus the observations made in C. W. J. C. 6373 / 88 do not hold good in this batch of writ applications which have been filed by the land owners of their transferees who have built structures on the acquired land and have thereby encroached upon it. 13. Thus the observations made in C. W. J. C. 6373 / 88 do not hold good in this batch of writ applications which have been filed by the land owners of their transferees who have built structures on the acquired land and have thereby encroached upon it. 13. The above aspect of the case was also noticed by the Apex Court in Awadh Bihari Yadavs case ( AIR 1996 SC 122 ) (supra) while dealing with the argument that since the Society had filed an application under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act and a Title Suit for removing the encroachments, the High Court was in error in not dismissing the writ petition (C.W.J.C. 6373 / 88) filed by the Society. The Apex Court referred to the decision in Jai Singh V/s. The Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 898 in which in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court had held that the appellant in the said case cannot pursue to parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. The Apex Court, however proceeded to observe, to quote : "10. .......... We are also of the view that ordinarily the above rule should prevail. There may be extraordinary situations or circumstances, which may even warrant, a different approach, where the orders passed by the Court are sought to be violated or thwarted with impunity. The Court cannot be a Silent spectator in such extraordinary situations. The position obtaining herein is rather a different and unusual one. The writ petition was filed by the Society (C.W.J.C. No. 6373/88), praying for a direction to the respondents to give effect to the directions contained in the earlier judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 3241/82, dated 23-9-1984, and for other consequential or incidental reliefs. So, it cannot be said that in the instant case, the relief sought was to remove the encroachments from the lands or to remove the unauthorised constructions, which are covered by the encroachment case or the title suit. They may be incidental or consequential to the main relief, in giving effect to the earlier directions or orders of Court. So, it cannot be said that in the instant case, the relief sought was to remove the encroachments from the lands or to remove the unauthorised constructions, which are covered by the encroachment case or the title suit. They may be incidental or consequential to the main relief, in giving effect to the earlier directions or orders of Court. But such relief cannot be withheld or denied." It was argued on behalf of the respondents that in view of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court there is no merit in the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners that no action in accordance with law can be taken for removing the encroachments from the acquired land during the pendency of the land encroachment proceeding and the Title Suit instituted at the instance of the Society. Moreover, C. W. J. C. No. 6373/88 had been filed by the Society essentially for enforcing the directions contained in C.W. J. C. 3241/82 filed by them before this Court and which was allowed with certain directions already mentioned earlier. The Apex Court had given a specific direction that the directions and orders contained in C. W. J. C. No.3241 / 82 which were not interfered with by the Supreme Court by their order dated 21-3-1984 passed in a Special Leave petition should be fully and effectively implemented. In this view of the matter no direction contained in C.W.J.C. No. 3241 / 82 can be held to have been watered down or diluted by the judgment and order passed in C.W.J.C. No.6373 / 88. There was a clear and unequivocal direction in C.W.J.C. 3241 / 82 that the Collector, Patna and the State Authorities will lend their weight to removal of encroachments as early as possible. The above decision was rendered in the year 1984 against which special leave petition was dismissed by the Apex Court the same year and for carrying out the directions and orders contained therein (in C.W.J.C.3241 / 82), the Apex Court again gave a direction by their judgment dated 31-8-1995 in Awadh Bihari Yadavs case ( AIR 1996 SC 122 ) (Supra). The Patna Regional Development Authority is constituted under the relevant provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act 1981and the lands belonging to the Authority are treated to be public land. The Patna Regional Development Authority is constituted under the relevant provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act 1981and the lands belonging to the Authority are treated to be public land. Thus in the light of the directions contained in the judgment and orders of this Court as also of the Apex Court there does not appear anything wrong on the face of it in the Vice-Chairman of the Authority issuing a public notice (Anexure-3) inviting attention to the order of the Supreme Court and informing the persons who had encroached upon the land to remove the encroachments. 14 It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Vice-Chairman of the Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice calling upon the persons to remove encroachments from the lands belonging to the Society. The admitted position is that the public notice (Annexure-3) was issued in respect of the entire area of the land acquired in the land acquisition proceeding i.e. 57.72 acres and this included and area of 30.02 acres of land the possession of which was transferred to the Society by the Authority. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that only possession over 30 acres and odd of the land acquired was handed over to the Society and not title thereto. This is evident from the agreement concluded between the Authority (Trust) and the Society in 1975 which contained a clear stipulation to that effect. There is some confusion as to whether title to the acquired land was with the State or the Authority. The State in their counter-affidavit have stated that title to the acquired and land is with the State. Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the State in C.W.J.C. 2275/96 states that "there has been no transfer of title of land to any authority or institution on behalf of the state or the District Collector, Patna" and "hence the title of the land still belonged to the State". The statement has been made in reply to the averment made by the writ petitioners that the lands being in possession of the Society are private lands and not public land. The Collector , Patna, however, in his letter dated 5-2-1996 addressed to the Vice-Chairman of the P.R.D.A. stated that the Authority had acquired title to the acquired land. Mr. The statement has been made in reply to the averment made by the writ petitioners that the lands being in possession of the Society are private lands and not public land. The Collector , Patna, however, in his letter dated 5-2-1996 addressed to the Vice-Chairman of the P.R.D.A. stated that the Authority had acquired title to the acquired land. Mr. Salve appearing for the petitioners (in C.W.J.C.2290/96) in course of argument had even prayed to the Court to direct the Land Acquisition Officer (State) to file a fresh counter affidavit. In my opinion, it is not necessary to dwell upon this controversy. What is important is that it is not disputed that the entire land was acquired in the land acquisition proceeding for the Trust the predecessor of the Authority and pursuant to the direction of the Court the award had been finalized and a public notice had been issued to the land owners to receive the amount of compensation. If the persons in whose favour the award has been made have not chosen to appear to receive the amount of compensation in response to the public notice issued by the collector it makes no difference whatsoever. The land acquired by the State for the Authority now belongs to the Authority after completion of all the legal formalities including the preparation of the award. Even assuming that due to non-completion of some minor technical formality the title to the acquired land was still with the State, the fact remains that possession over the entire area acquired had been handed over to the Trust (Authority) as far back as in May 1962, and ever since then first the Trust and thereafter the Authority were dealing with the acquired land as their own to the knowledge of all. The Authority had handed over possession of 30.02 acres of land to the Society. The title to the said land has admittedly not been transferred to the Society. In the circumstances the land could not be described as private lands of the Society even if they have transferred title to such lands to the allottees as claimed by some of the writ petitioners. If the Society had no title to the land, the mere fact that they executed any such deed transferring title to the land to others will not vest in the Society the title to the land which they did not have. If the Society had no title to the land, the mere fact that they executed any such deed transferring title to the land to others will not vest in the Society the title to the land which they did not have. Thus the character of the land, it was argued on behalf of the State, would continue to be public land and not private land as contended by the writ petitioners. The P. R. D. A. in their counter-affidavit (in C. W. J. C. 2290/96) have also reiterated the above view that as per clause (8) of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 11-1-75 (Annexure-A) executed between the Authority and the Society only the possession over 30.02 acres of land was transferred to the Society and not the full right and title to the land. It was further stated that title to the land would pass to the Society only if the entire dues of the Trust (now Authority) is paid in full by the Society in the manner agreed upon in the agreement and that no such final agreement with the Society has yet been entered into. Thus the title to the whole of the acquired land including the 30.02 acres transferred to the Society only in so far possession thereof was concerned was with the State from the date of notification or with the Authority to which possession over the entire acquired land of 57.71 acres was handed over by the State in 1962. The Authority a statutory body has been dealing with the acquired land as it is belonged to them and started constructing roads etc, thereon. Neither the State Govt. nor the Authority have so far transferred title to 30.0? acres of land to the Society. Thus in any view of the matter the Society had no title to 30.02 acres and hence title to the entire 57.71 acres acquired land was either with the State or the Authority. In either case the entire 57.71 acres will be treated as public and including 30.02 acres in possession of the Society. If the Society has made all the payments to the Authority as required under the agreement can a statutory body like the Authority, refuse to exercise its statutory, powers to get the encroachment removed from the entire acquired land? In either case the entire 57.71 acres will be treated as public and including 30.02 acres in possession of the Society. If the Society has made all the payments to the Authority as required under the agreement can a statutory body like the Authority, refuse to exercise its statutory, powers to get the encroachment removed from the entire acquired land? Can even the State deny them their right and authority to do so when the lands were acquired for the Trust (now the Authority) and had handed over its possession to them more than 34 years ago? In my opinion the respondent-State cannot now turn around and deny the Authority any such right when all the formalities regarding the award have been completed and the Authority had been dealing with the acquired land as their own for more than three decades to the knowledge of all including the State Govt. Even assuming that some minor technical formality, in between the State of Bihar and the Authority was yet to be completed, that will have no bearing on the authority of the P. R. D. A. to take steps permissible in law to free the entire acquired lands from encroachments. 15. The P. R. D. A. in their counter-affidavit have made the statement that the general notice in the newspaper dated 9-2-1996 has been issued in the exercise of its powers under Sec. 85. Clause (4)(ga) of the P. R. D. A.A. Act, 1981. As a matter of fact such a course was suggested to the Authority by the Collector in his letter dated 5-2-96 addressed to the Vice-Chairman (Annexure-B). The letter as already noticed earlier referred to the opinion obtained from the Government Advocate that since the possession of the entire acquired land was handed over to the Authority on 6-5-62 and all the proceedings in respect of the payment of compensation on account of the land acquisitioned had been completed. the acquired land now belonged to the Authority and the Authority, was competent u/s. 85(4)(ka) and 85-A of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act to take action for removing the encroachments. it may be observed at the very outset that the impugned notice itself does not indicate that it had been issued by the Authority under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. it may be observed at the very outset that the impugned notice itself does not indicate that it had been issued by the Authority under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. As already noticed earlier the notice purports to have been issued in compliance of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The english translation of the provisions of Sec. 85(4)(ka) to (ng) of the Bihar Regional Development Act, 1981 which are in Hindi reads as follows:- "4(ka) : The Vice-Chairman of the Authority and any other officer authorised by the Authority can pass order for eviction of such persons from the land or buildings of the Authority who are in unauthorised possession of land or building of the Authority or are acting in similar way.(kha): The procedure of the Bihar Government premises Rent Realisation and Eviction Act, 1955 with appropriate amendment should be adopted in the process of eviction from buildings.(ga): In the process of removing encroachment from the land of the Authority, the ViceChairman and other Officers authorised by the Authority shall follow the procedure laid down in the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. All the landed property of the Authority shall be treated as public land and the encroachment shall carry the same meaning which is defined under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act.(gha): All the buildings of the Authority which have been constructed by it or which have come to its fold, shall be considered Government premises under the Bihar Government Premises Rent Realisation and Eviction Act, 1955.(ng): The Vice-Chairman and other officers authorised by the Authority shall be treated as Civil Court in course of disposing of the work of eviction and removing encroachment.The provisions of the Act referred to above themselves provide that the Authority would follow the procedure laid down in the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 in the matter of removal of encroachment from the land of the Authority and in conducting the proceeding for removal of encroachment the Vice-Chairman or any officer authorised by the Authority would be treated as a Civil Court. 16 It is not necessary while hearing these writ petitions to consider the question whether or not the Authority could act u/ S. 85 of the Act to remove the encroachment as the impugned notice made no mention of its having been issued under any provisions of the Act. 16 It is not necessary while hearing these writ petitions to consider the question whether or not the Authority could act u/ S. 85 of the Act to remove the encroachment as the impugned notice made no mention of its having been issued under any provisions of the Act. All that the notice said was that it was issued by the Vice-Chairman to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court. As already held above the notice does appear to have been issued in compliance with the directions contained in the orders of this Court as also the Apex Court. The writ petitioners as already noticed earlier are either the land owners or their transferees and the constructions made and the structures raised by them on the encroached land have already been held to be illegal. Some of the petitioners or their father had already figured in earlier litigation to challenge the acquisition and which challenge had repeatedly failed as already noticed earlier. Some of them are also defendants in the Title suit filed by the Society for confirmation of possession and removal of encroachment. In view of the decision of this Court in C. W.J.C. No. 3241/82 as already noticed earlier that those who have raised substantial structures on the acquired land had done so at their own risk, the only purpose behind filing of these writ applications, it is argued, is not to ventilate any right that these petitioners or their predecessors in interest had in the acquired land but only to delay the matters. The Apex Court had adversely commented on such conduct by interested persons in very strong words in Awadh Bihari Yadavs case ( AIR 1996 SC 122 ) (supra). Their Lordships expressed their anguish over the entire episode and commented that "a laudable and noble cause is delayed for more than three decades under one pretext or the other. The Apex Court also referred to AIR 1974 SC 1886 filed by Ayodhaya Bhagat and others against the State of Bihar and others challenging the acquisition of land, which a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court presided over by Hon ble the Chief Justice in their judgment delivered on 13-8-74 dismissed with costs in these words, to quote:- "23. The High Court held that the appellants were guilty of delay and laches. The High Court relied on two important facts. The High Court held that the appellants were guilty of delay and laches. The High Court relied on two important facts. First, that there was delivery of possession. The appellants alleged that it was a paper transaction, The High Court rightly rejected that contention. Secondly, the High Court said that the Trust invested several lakhs of rupees for the construction of roads and material for development purposes. The appellants were in full knowledge of the same. The appellants did not take any steps. The High Court rightly said that to allow this type of challenge to an acquisition of large block of land piecemeal by the owners of some of the plots in succession would not be proper. If this type of challenge is encouraged the various owners of small plots will come up with writ petition and hold up the acquisition proceedings for more than a generation.The High Court rightly exercised discretion against the appellants. We do not see any reason to take a contrary views to the discretion exercised by the High Court. "Thus some of the grounds relied upon by some of the writ petitioners that they were not joined as respondents by the Society in the writ applications and were, therefore, not bound by the decisions of this Court has no merit and deserve to be summarily rejected as such. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court delivered on 6-8-84 in Jagannath Jha V/s. State of Bihar in C. W. J. C. No. 3482/82. A copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure-8 (in C.W. J.C. 2275/96). The writ petition was filed for quashing a notice dated 9-7-84 issued by the District Magistrate, Patna, in the daily newspaper. By the impugned notice the District Magistrate had notified to the public in general that in view of the decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 324.11 82, any, person in unauthorised possession of any portion of the said land (57.7 acres) should remove the encroachment or should file a show cause before the District Magistrate, failing which the encroachment shall be removed at the cost of the person concerned. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners trial the aforesaid public notice was more or less in the same lines as the impugned notice issued by the Vice-Chairman, P. R. D. A. , for removing the encroachment. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners trial the aforesaid public notice was more or less in the same lines as the impugned notice issued by the Vice-Chairman, P. R. D. A. , for removing the encroachment. The argument advanced was that without initiating any proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act it was not open to the District Magistrate to direct the petitioners and others to remove the constructions made by them on the land in question. On behalf of the respondent an argument was advanced that the District Magistrate had issued a general notice in view of the observations given by this Court that the Collector, Patna, and the State authorities will lend their weight in removal of encroachment as early as possible. The Court, however, expressed the opinion that when this Court made the aforesaid observation/ direction it obviously meant in accordance with law. Since the contention of the, petitioners in that case that no proceeding under the Act or any other law had been initiated was not controverted by the counsel appearing for the respondent, the Court held that the impugned notice dated 9-7-84 had been issued without any authority in law and quashed it with liberty to the District Magistrate to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 18. The decision in Jagannath Jhas case (supra) it is argued, has no application to the facts of this case because as stated by the P. R. D. A. in the counter-affidavit the public notice had been issued by the Authority in exercise of its powers conferred under Sec. 85(4)(ga) of the P. R. D. A. Act, 1981. Sec. 85(4)(ga) provides that in the process of removing encroachment from the land of the Authority, the Vice-Chairman and other officers authorised by the Authority shall follow the procedure laid down in the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. The impugned notice dated 9-2-96 makes no reference to Sec. 85(4)(ga) of the B. R. D. A. Act or the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. The impugned notice dated 9-2-96 makes no reference to Sec. 85(4)(ga) of the B. R. D. A. Act or the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. Except for the aforementioned bald statement contained in their counter-affidavit the P. R. D. A. did not produce any material to Support their case that necessary proceedings under any of the provisions of the Act had been drawn up prior to the issue of the public notice: The notice was issued by the Vice-Chairman of the Authority pursuant to a letter received from the Collector, Patna, mentioning the advice given by the Government Advocate that the Authority, was competent to take steps for removal of encroachment u/S. 85(4)(ga) of the B. R. D. A. Act. That letter was dated 5-2-96 and the public notice appeared in the daily newspaper on 9-2-96. As a matter of fact the Authority did not even give reference number of any proceeding that had been drawn up in accordance with law pursuant to which the impugned notice was issued. Moreover, there being nothing in the impugned notice to suggest that the notice was issued under any provisions of any law or Rules made thereunder authorising the P.R. D. A. to issue such notice, the legality of the notice must be considered on the basis of its contents alone. 19. The impugned notice purports to have been issued to comply with the directions of the Apex Court of the year 1995 which obviously refers to the judgment of the Apex Court delivered on 31-8-95 in Awadh Bihari Yadavs case ( AIR 1996 SC 122 ) (supra). The judgment did contain the direction that the directions and orders contained in C. W. J. C. 3241/82 should be fully and effectively implemented. As already noticed earlier this Court in C. W. J. C. 3241/82 had issued a writ of mandamus directing the Collector to prepare the award and had also made the observation that "we entertain no doubt that the Collector, Patna, and State authority will lend their weight to removal of encroachment as early as possible. " This Court in Jagannath Jhas case (supra) has already expressed the opinion that when this Court made the aforesaid observation/ direction it obviously meant in accordance with law. " This Court in Jagannath Jhas case (supra) has already expressed the opinion that when this Court made the aforesaid observation/ direction it obviously meant in accordance with law. There is no dispute between the parties and possibly there cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition that encroachment on public land can be removed only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. When the Apex Court observed that the direction and orders contained in C. W. J. C. 3241 /82 should be fully and effectively implemented, can it be argued as has been done in behalf of the society that the State and its authorities were bound to remove the encroachment without following any procedure established by low? It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the observation of this Court that the Collector, Patna, and the State authority will lend their weight to removal of encroachment as early as possible was neither a direction nor can order passed in the said writ application which was only with regard to preparation of award and when the Apex Court directed that the directions and orders should be fully and effectively implemented, it did not mean that the encroachments were to be removed without following any procedure established by law. As already clarified by this Court in Jagannath Jhas case the aforesaid observation /direction of the Court obviously meant in accordance with law. There is, therefore, no merit in the stand of the Society contained in their supplementary counter-affidavit (in C. W. J. C. 2591/96) that Articles 141 and 1.44 of the Constitution of India were attracted and the authority was required under the law of the land to issue the public notice in compliance with the directions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Awadh Bihari Yadavs case ( AIR 1996 SC 122 ) (supra) and any failure to do so would have made the authority liable for contempt of Court. There is also no merit in the contention put forward on behalf of the Society that the filing of the instant writ application amounts to abuse of the process of the Court as the Hon ble Supreme Court had "already- concluded everything". There is also no merit in the contention put forward on behalf of the Society that the filing of the instant writ application amounts to abuse of the process of the Court as the Hon ble Supreme Court had "already- concluded everything". The petitioners contention is that even if they were in unauthorised occupation of the acquired land, the law of the land required that their possession could not be taken by the State in an unauthorised manner in this connection the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court in Gait Public Library and Institute V/s. state of Bihar, (1995) 1 Pat LJR 585. The learned Addl. Advocate General No. II appearing on behalf of the State in that case had fairly conceded that there was no dispute regarding the settled proposition of law that the State had no power to take possession in an unauthorised manner and the State or its officer had to follow the Rule of law and they can take possession by the procedure known to law. The aforesaid decision contains a reference to Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 1967 Mohanlal V/s. State of Punjab disposed of on 25-11-59 in which the Apex Court speaking through Hegde, J. observed : "that under our jurisprudence even unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in the manner authorised by law." The Apex Court had further observed that a person in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution if he is being evicted in a manner not authorised by law. 20 It is not necessary to dwell on this aspect of the case for neither the State nor the Authority has put forward any argument that persons found to have encroached upon the acquired land which is in the nature of a public land can be removed from the land in process of removing the encroachment following any procedure established by law. The Authority which issued the impugned notice calling upon the persons in unauthorised occupation to remove the encroachment have themselves stated in the counter-affidavit that they are taking action in accordance with law and the provisions of Section 85(4)(ga) of the P. R. D. A. Act, 1981 were specifically referred to by them in that behalf. The Authority which issued the impugned notice calling upon the persons in unauthorised occupation to remove the encroachment have themselves stated in the counter-affidavit that they are taking action in accordance with law and the provisions of Section 85(4)(ga) of the P. R. D. A. Act, 1981 were specifically referred to by them in that behalf. The question is whether the impugned notice deserves to be quashed on the ground that no provision of law under which it was had been mentioned therein. If this Court had found on more than one occasion that those found in unauthorised occupation of any portion of the acquired land had no right title and interest except receiving the amount of compensation and the decision of this Court had also been upheld by the Apex Court on several occasions, what was wrong on the part of the P. R. D. A. for whose benefit the acquisition had been made and to whom the land belonged after the award was prepared, to issue a public notice calling upon the persons in such unauthorised occupation to remove the encroachments? There is another aspect of the case. The admitted position is that a large number of persons bad encroached upon the acquired land and only some of had figured as petitioners and respondents in a number of cases before the High Court and the Apex Court. All of them may not be even aware of the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court adversely affecting their interest; although as already held by the Courts they were bound by such decision. If a public notice as issued calling upon them to remove the encroachment it is only fair to the persons concerned as it gives them an opportunity to remove the encroachment before being subjected to any proceeding drawn under the law for removal of the encroachment made by them. The acquired lands have been found to be public land which were in possession of the Authority ever since 1962 and the land belonged to the Authority for whom it was acquired by the State after completion of the award. The acquired lands have been found to be public land which were in possession of the Authority ever since 1962 and the land belonged to the Authority for whom it was acquired by the State after completion of the award. If the Authority had chosen to issue such a public notice giving information to the concerned persons after the matter had been finally settled by the Apex Court in Awadh Bihari Yadavs case ( AIR 1996 SC 122 ) (supra), no legal flaw or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Authority can be found. The stand of some of the writ petitioners that since they were in possession of the land and had built houses and were living there for more than 35 years, the State or its authority had no power to remove them cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if the land was public land and had already vested in the State after the acquisition and the title to the public land was now with the P.R. D. A., the authorities of the P. R. D. A. could take action under the law for removal of such encroachments since possession of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case gave them no right to continue with their unauthorised possession howsoever long it may be. 21. The next important question for consideration is whether that part of the notice which mentioned that if the encroachments are not removed within 15 days of the publication of the notice, the encroachment shall be removed with the help of the Collector can be held to be within the authority of the Vice-Chairman of the P. R. D. A. to issue. The only possible answer to the question would be in the negative. It is one thing to call upon the persons concerned in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court to vacate the land from their unauthorised occupation and free the land from the encroachment but to tell them that if they do not do so the encroachment shall be removed with the help of the Collector is quite a different thing. As already noticed earlier even the persons who had encroached upon the land could be removed only in accordance with the procedure established by law. As already noticed earlier even the persons who had encroached upon the land could be removed only in accordance with the procedure established by law. The P.R.D.A. under the relevant provisions of the B. R. A. Act were authorised to take such action for removal of the encroachment and in doing so they were required to comply with the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. Since the impugned notice does not say that on their failure to remove the encroachment action will be taken in accordance with law, the notice in so far it says that on the failure of the persons to remove the encroachment, the encroachment shall be removed with the help of the Collector is in excess of the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chairman of the Authority and the aforesaid portion of the notice deserves to be quashed and I order accordingly. It must, however, be held that the P.R.D.A. is competent to take action in accordance with law for removal of the encroachments even if the Society had filed a land encroachment case as also a Title Suit for removal of such encroachment for the Authority is not bound by any act of the Society and since the public land belonged to the Authority and not to the Society to which only possession had been transferred, the Authority would be within its jurisdiction in taking action in accordance with law to remove the encroachment. Only because some of the writ petitioners happened to be made parties to the land encroachment proceeding or the Title Suit as defendants by the Society could not clothe them with any right to deny the authority of a statutory body like the P.R.D.A. to take such action as is permissible under the law for removal of the encroachments made by them. In other words the pendency of the land encroachment case or the Title Suit filed by the Society for removal of encroachments will not prevent the P.R.D.A. from exercising its statutory powers under the B.R.D.A. Act. 22. Thus for the reasons mentioned above these writ applications are allowed in part to the extent mentioned above and a portion of the impugned notice dated 9-2-96 (Annexure 3 in C.W.J.C. 2591/96) threatening to remove the encroachments with the help of Collector is hereby quashed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 22. Thus for the reasons mentioned above these writ applications are allowed in part to the extent mentioned above and a portion of the impugned notice dated 9-2-96 (Annexure 3 in C.W.J.C. 2591/96) threatening to remove the encroachments with the help of Collector is hereby quashed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. The P.R.D.A. shall, however, be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for removal of the encroachments.Application partly allowed.