ORDERS 1. There is a single petitioner in each of these six writ petitions filed against a common order passed by the Collector, Jehanabad in appeals arising from proceedings held under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (herein-after referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The Circle Officer, Jehanabad initiated proceedings under the Act against nine persons (including, these six petitioners before this court) who are, in occupation of portions of plot no. 209 under Khata No.326 having an area of 43 decimals and situated at Mauza Makhdumpur Unta Madarpur in the District of Jehanabad. The stand of the proceedees was that they were in lawful possession of their respective pieces of land. But according to the State, Plot no. 209 was a public land over which they have made unauthorised encroachments. The Circle Officer, by separate orders passed in each of the nine proceedings, rejected the defences raised by the proceedees and directed for their removal from the pieces of land under their respective occupations. 3. It appears that against the orders passed by the Circle Officer, the proceedees jointly came to this court in CWJC No. 1729 of 1997. Though the order passed in that writ petition is not brought on the record, nor the directions(s) given by this court in that case is clearly spelt out in these writ petitions, it appears from the order passed by the Collector (coming under challenge in these writ petitions) that in the earlier writ petition (CWJC No. 1729 of 1997), this court, having regard to the fact that a statutory appeal was available to the proceedees, declined to interfere and left it open to the proceedees to seen their remedy by filing appeals against the orders passed by the Circle Officer. Pursuant to the direction given by this court in CWJC 1729/97 the nine proceedees preferred separate appeals before the Collector, Jehanabad against the orders of their ejectment passed by the Circle Officer, Jehanabad. The nine appeals thus filed before the Collector, Jehanabad were heard together but the main order dated 14.5.1998 was passed in Case No. 27/DM/96-91 filed by Onkarmal Khetan (petitioner in CWJC No.5568 of 1998). The other appeals were disposed of simply with reference to the order passed in the appeals of Onkarmal Khetan. 4. Against the orders passed by the Collector, Jehanabad six writ petitions. constituting this batch of cases, were filed before this court. The other appeals were disposed of simply with reference to the order passed in the appeals of Onkarmal Khetan. 4. Against the orders passed by the Collector, Jehanabad six writ petitions. constituting this batch of cases, were filed before this court. The remaining three proceedees are not before this court in this batch of writ petitions. The following table will indicate the numbers of proceedings and the areas of land in dispute in respect of each of the six petitioners. No. of Writ Name of Case No. Appeal No. Portion of Petition Petitioner before Cir- before Collector Plot No. 209 cle Officer in dispute CWJC Nos. 5455/98 Manoj Kumar 176/96-97 32/DM/96-97 30' x 50' 5459/98 Dinesh Prasad 159/96-97 13/DM/96-97 12' x 42' 5568/98 Onkarmal Khetan 175/96-97 27/DM/96-97 55' x 83' 5741/98 Mahendra Prasad 170/96-97 30/DM/96-97 17' x 42' 5777/98 Kunti Devi 168/96-97 34/DM/96-97 20' x 54' 5794/98 Pratap Narain 166/96-97 33/DM/96-97 30' x 66' Singh Not before Manohar Prasad 171/96-97 28/DM/96-97 12' x 40' this Court Do Bhagwan Sao 167/96-97 29/DM/6-97 14' x 54' Do Basudeo Prasad/ 172/96-97 35/DM/96-97 40' x 40' Gayatri Devi 5. The case of the petitioners is that Plot no. 209 was the Bakasht land of the erstwhile Zamindar. The Zamindar made settlement of the disputed plot in favour of one Nishan Singh under a Hukumnama and at the time of vesting of the Zamindari, the name of Nishan Singh was shown in respect of the disputed plot in the return filed by the outgoing Zamindar. The rent receipts were issued by the State of Bihar in the name of the aforesaid settlee. Beyond Nishan Singh, the case of the petitioners tends to get rather confused and it is not quite clear whether they claimed to be the descendant of Nishan Singh or whether they claimed through purchases from Nishan Singh, in some cases 3 or 4 stages distant from the original settlee. It seems that since the cases were contested jointly, all the petitioners came to take up all the pleas. over-looking that some of them were mutually exclusive. 6. It is further the case of the petitioners that the disputed plot was never used as Kabristan (graveyard) and that it was the land of plot nos. 653 and 223 which were used as Kabristan from before. over-looking that some of them were mutually exclusive. 6. It is further the case of the petitioners that the disputed plot was never used as Kabristan (graveyard) and that it was the land of plot nos. 653 and 223 which were used as Kabristan from before. It was also stated that the petitioners were paying rent to the Jehanabad Municipality and were getting rent receipts from the municipality. 7. The petitioners filed a large number of documents before the Collector. Those documents, however, did not include either the Hukumnama allegedly made by the erstwhile Zamindar in favour of Nishan singh or the return filed by the Zamindar at the time of vesting of Zamindari. It further appears that the story of settlement being made by the Zamindar is invented without much imagination and without paying any heed to the nature of the disputed land. The undeniable position is that in the survey record of rights, Plot no. 209 is described as Gairmazrua Aam land and in the column concerning the type of land, it is described as Kabristan (graveyard). Section 103 (3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act mandates presumption of correctness of entries made in the record of rights and it is quite elementary that a piece of Gairmazrua Aam land, can not be settled by the Zamindar in derogation of the rights of the general public. Therefore, the case of the petitioners, the basis of which is the settlement made by the erstwhile Zamindar, prima facie appears to be unfounded. The orders passed in Rent Fixation Proceedings and the various rent receipts which are normally issued With the endorsement "without prejudice", are, therefore, of hardly any significance, supporting the case of the petitioner,. Moreover, no final publication under Section 10 of the B. & O. Municipal Act is made by the Jehanabad Municipality of any record of survey made by it. The municipal rent receipts are therefore, of practically no value. At this stage, it may be noted that the petitioners' tried to lay great stress on a title suit earlier filed by Nishan Singh which was decreed in his favour by the court of the Munsif, Jehanabad. It appears that an encroachment proceeding was earlier held against Nishan Singh in which a direction was given for his removal from a small piece of land being a portion of Plot no. 209. It appears that an encroachment proceeding was earlier held against Nishan Singh in which a direction was given for his removal from a small piece of land being a portion of Plot no. 209. He challenged the order passed in the encroachment proceeding by filing T.S. No.175 of 1996 which was decreed ex-parte by judgment and decree, dated 8.9.1971 passed by the Munsif, Jehanabad. It is, however, important to note that Nishan Singh claimed settlement of only 4 decimals of land in his favour out of which only half a decimal was the subject matter of the encroachment proceeding and consequently of the suit. The Civil Court decree is thus in respect of only half a decimal of land of Plot no. 209. 9. Further, it would be Interesting to note that Nishan Singh himself claimed settlement being made in his favour of a piece of land 4 decimals in area (that is to say, a little over one katha). But the six petitioners in this batch of cases and the three other proceedees who are not before this court, claiming under or through Nishan Singh, lay claim over pieces of land having an aggregate area of about 10 kathas. These are only some the major anomalies in the case of the petitioners. 10. Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that on the disputed pieces of land, there were pucca houses constructed by the petitioners since long and those would not be removed in a summary proceeding under the Public Land Encroachment Act. In this regard, the rest of the five petitioners try to take benefit of the fact that a Petrol Pump belonging to Onkarmal Khetan (petitioner in CWJC No.5568/98) is reported to be in existence on a portion of plot no. 209 from 1937. 11. We shall come to the case of Onkarmal Khetan presently, but so far as the other petitioners are concerned, on their own showing, their occupation of the respective pieces of land is relatively far more recent. From annexure-5 to the petition (CWJC No.5444/98) it appears that Smt. Kunti Devi (petitioner in CWJC No. 5777/98) and Dinesh Prasad (petitioner in CWJC No. 5459/98) claim to have purchased their respective pieces of land on 30.12.1980 and 3.12.1980 respectively; Mahendra Prasad (petitioner in CWJC No. 5741/98) claims to have purchased his piece of land on 28.12.1974. From annexure-5 to the petition (CWJC No.5444/98) it appears that Smt. Kunti Devi (petitioner in CWJC No. 5777/98) and Dinesh Prasad (petitioner in CWJC No. 5459/98) claim to have purchased their respective pieces of land on 30.12.1980 and 3.12.1980 respectively; Mahendra Prasad (petitioner in CWJC No. 5741/98) claims to have purchased his piece of land on 28.12.1974. It may be noted that the dispute regarding their occupation of portions of Plot No. 209 also started more or less at the same time. The dates of occupation of petitioners, Manoj Kumar and Pratap Narain Singh are not stated any-where. It is thus to be seen that the occupation of the disputed pieces of land by the petitioner, with the exception of Onkarmal Khetan, is relatively recent. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the application of Public Land Encroachment Act against pucca structures and if it is found that the encroacher has made a pucca structure on a piece of public land, the appropriate authority can validly direct for its removal under the provisions of the Act. 12. Coming now to the case of Onkarmal Khetan. It is asserted that there are materials to show that his Petrol Pump has been in existence on a portion of Plot No. 209 from the year 1937 and it can not, therefore, be removed in a proceeding under the Public Land Encroachment Act. It is, however, to be noted that Onkarmal Khetan has also filed Title Suit No. 163 of 1996 in the court of the Munsif, Jehanabad against the order of his removal from Plot No. 209 in the suit he has also made a prayer for injunction. The fact regarding the filing of the suit is clearly stated in para-20 of the writ petition where the filing of the present writ petition is sought to be justified as follows: "The present writ petition is being filed by all the petitioners before this court for immediate legal relief in which the petitioners are entitled to, other petitioners have not filed any suit. 13. In other words, Onkarmal Khetan is trying to maintain two parallel proceedings, seeking the same reliefs, which is clearly impermissible in law and his writ petition is, therefore, liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 13. In other words, Onkarmal Khetan is trying to maintain two parallel proceedings, seeking the same reliefs, which is clearly impermissible in law and his writ petition is, therefore, liable to be rejected on this ground alone. He has admittedly made a prayer for injunction in the suit filed by him and, therefore, there can be no question of entertaining his writ petition for granting any "immediate legal relief". 14. Mr. Singh, next submitted that some of the petitioners in the six cases, were privileged persons and were, therefore, entitled to the benefit under the Proviso to Section 6 of the Act. The submission is simply to be noted to be rejected. The Proviso to Section 6 of the Act relates to encroachments made prior to 10.10.1955. The petitioners, as seen above, came in occupation of the disputed pieces of land much later. 15. Mr. Singh next submitted that the same Circle Officer who initiated the encroachment proceedings and passed orders for the ejectment of the petitioners from the disputed pieces of land, had earlier filed a counter affidavit in a writ petition being CWJC No. 9682 of 1996 which was filed by some other persons seeking this court's intervention for removal of the petitioners from plot no. 209 claiming it to be a Kabristan. In that counter affidavit, the Circle Officer had stated that though the land of Plot No. 209 was recorded in the record of rights as Gairmazrua Aam land (Kabristan), it was not used as Kabristan and there were houses standing on it from long. According to Mr. Sinha, the Circle Officer having made such a statement before this court, it was no longer open to him to initiate proceedings under the Public Land Encroachment Act for the removal of the petitioners from that plot. I find absolutely no substance in the submission. 16. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit or substance in any of these writ petitions. These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. With the dismissal of these cases, interim orders, if any, passed in these cases stand vacated and it will be open to the District Authorities to take steps for the removal of the petitioners from the disputed land. In case of Onkarmal Khetan, however, any action by the authorities will be subject to interim directions/injunctions, if any, granted by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 163 of 1996. 17. In case of Onkarmal Khetan, however, any action by the authorities will be subject to interim directions/injunctions, if any, granted by the Civil Court in Title Suit No. 163 of 1996. 17. There will be no order as to cost.