JUDGEMENT S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. The petitioners while challenged the order dated 2.1.89 passed by respondent-Circle Officer in Land Encroachment Case no. 9/88-89, also challenged the notices u/s. 3 and 6 issued under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956. In fact, the initiation of proceeding in question is under challenge. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents not to demolish the house/construction situated over the land in question. 2. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss the claim and counter claim of the parties, except the relevant fact. The petitioners claim to be landholder of the disputed lands. While dispute relates to 2236 Sqf. of land out of 7 decimals of C.S. Survey plot no. 296 appertaining to C.S. Khata no. 73 and 432 Sq. out of 1 decimal of C.S. Plot no. 395 appertaining to C.S. Khata no.111, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned; in the case of petitioner no.2 said dispute relates to 390 + 780 Sqf. of land out of 2 decimals of C.S. plot no. 289 appertaining to C.S. Khata no. 73 as also 2 decimals of land of C.S. plot no. 321 appertaining to C.S. Khata no. 73. In respect of petitioner no.3, the dispute relates to 582 Sqf. of land out of 1 decimal of C.S. Plot no. 320 appertaining to C.S. Khata no. 73. 3. According to the petitioners, the plots in question were recorded in C.S. records of right published on 29.12.1910 in the name of District Board as owner but one Mostt. Bhatini W/o late Ranju Pasi; Dasai Sao S/o Chhedi Sao and Mukun Lal S/o Raman Lal were shown to be in possession having their Makan over the same. In support of the claim, photocopies of C.S. Khatian of the disputed plot no. 385, 289 and 320 have been enclosed as Annexure-1series. Their case is that on 9.12.1929 one Nirmal Singh purchased the house over the land of C.S. Plot no. 385 from Most. Bhatni vide registered sale deed dated 9.12.1929 Subsequently, it was sold to Ramdhari Singh by registered sale deed dated 8.1.1930, who were maternal grand father of petitioner no.1 (Chachera Nana). Said Ramdhari Singh sold house of plot nos. 384 and 385, total 3 decimals to one Babu Nunu ,Singh, grand father of petitioner no. 385 from Most. Bhatni vide registered sale deed dated 9.12.1929 Subsequently, it was sold to Ramdhari Singh by registered sale deed dated 8.1.1930, who were maternal grand father of petitioner no.1 (Chachera Nana). Said Ramdhari Singh sold house of plot nos. 384 and 385, total 3 decimals to one Babu Nunu ,Singh, grand father of petitioner no. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 23.11.1939 and since then Babu Nunu Singh and thereafter petitioner no. 1 are coming in peaceful possession over the same. The rent has been paid and receipts granted by District Board followed by Chaukidari receipts by P.w.D. and Jamabandis having been created in the name of Radha Devi, mother of the petitioner no.1. Number of receipts in support of claim of petitioner no.1 has been enclosed as Annexure-2 series. It is further stated that father of the petitioner no.1 Babu Nunu Singh purchased said disputed C.S. Plot no. 296 measuring 7 decimals vide registered sale deed dated 12.4.1940 from the permanent settlee of District Board, namely, Bhagwan Sah and since- then he and the petitioner no.1 with family members are in peaceful physical possession over the same having pucca house standing thereon. Thereby the petitioner no.1 claim to be in possession of the land since more than 60 years. Petitioner nos. 2 & 3 have also shown the manner in which they accrued right and title over the respective land. According to them, C.S. Plot no. 289 measuring 2 decimals and C.S. Plot no. 321 measuring 2 decimals were in possession of Dasai Sao, who had a houses over the lands aforesaid. Said Dasai Sao owed debt to M/s. Jindaram Aadan Lal of Mirchaiganj, who filed Money Suit no. 149/1 of 1926/1928 against Dasai Sao and obtained decree against him. In Execution of such decree, in pursuance of Execution Case no. 42/1931, lands and houses were auctioned sold on 10.10.1931 and delivery of possession given through court on 1.1.1932. They acquired the title to the land and houses of C.S. Plot no. 290. Subsequently, said Jindaram died leaving behind his son Sri Madan Lal, who died leaving behind his son Purushottam Das, who came in possession over the land in question. There were three shops Katras over C.S. Plot no. 289 and two shop Katras over C.S. Plot no. 290 in which business was running. 290. Subsequently, said Jindaram died leaving behind his son Sri Madan Lal, who died leaving behind his son Purushottam Das, who came in possession over the land in question. There were three shops Katras over C.S. Plot no. 289 and two shop Katras over C.S. Plot no. 290 in which business was running. Said Purushottam Das on behalf of him and guardian of his minor son executed a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1959 appertaining to aforesaid three Katras shops constructed over C.S. Plot nos. 289 (in part) and 290 in favour of one Sheo Narayan Sao, father of petitioner no. 2. Since then the father of the petitioner no.2 and the said petitioner in possession and paid rent for which receipts are being granted by the State of Bihar. In the sale deed dated 22.12.1959 wrong plot number was shown though Tauji number etc. were rightly shown. For the said reason, certain rectification was made by rectification registered deed no. 473 dated 14.1.1960 in favour of 2nd petitioner. The sale deeds, rent receipts etc. have been enclosed by petitioner no.2 as annexure-4 series to the writ petition. The second petitioner has also given the details of evidences for claiming right and title in respect of C.S. Plot No. 289 (Part) and 321 and enclosed the copies of the relevant sale deed, rent receipts etc. in his support. So far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, he does not claim any right and title in respect of plot no. 389 though notice has been issued to him U/s. 3 & 6 of the B.P.L.E. Act. However, he claims right, title and interest as also possession over the C.S. Plot no. 319 and 320 relating to which he has given details with respect to possession and reference of registered sale deed dated 29.8.1932 as was made in favour of his father Ram Babu Khatri. He has also enclosed the copy of the sale deed dated 29.8.1932 and rent receipts in his support as Annexure-7 series. 4. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the respondents though they were noticed, even no counter-affidavit has been filed by them to contest the case. 5. He has also enclosed the copy of the sale deed dated 29.8.1932 and rent receipts in his support as Annexure-7 series. 4. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the respondents though they were noticed, even no counter-affidavit has been filed by them to contest the case. 5. It appears that in spite of such claim relating to right and title made by petitioners and numerous evidences as cited, the Land Encroachment case No.9/88-89 was initiated against a number of persons including the petitioners and impugned order was passed on 2.1.1989 (vide Annexure-II). The petitioners along with others were declared encroachers over the lands in dispute. 6. Almost similar question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh VS. Thummala Krishna Rao and another ( AIR 1982 SC 1081 ). In the said case, the Apex Court made the following observation: "it seems to us clear from these provisions that the summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by section 6 of the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is "the property of Government". In regard to property described in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 2, there can be no doubt, difficulty or dispute as to the title of the Government and, therefore, in respect of such property, the Government would be free to take recourse to the summary remedy of eviction provided for in section 6. A person who occupies a part of a public road, street, bridge, the bed of the sea and the like, is in unauthorised occupation of property which is declared by Sec. 2 to be the property of the Government and, therefore, it is in public interest to evict him expeditiously which can only be done by resorting to the summary remedy provided by the Act. But Section 6(1) which confers the power of summary eviction on the Government limits that power to cases in which a person is in unauthorised occupation of a land "for which he is liable to pay assessment under section 3", Section 3, in turn, refers to unauthorised occupation of any land "which is the property of Government". But Section 6(1) which confers the power of summary eviction on the Government limits that power to cases in which a person is in unauthorised occupation of a land "for which he is liable to pay assessment under section 3", Section 3, in turn, refers to unauthorised occupation of any land "which is the property of Government". If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take an unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title xxxxxxxxxx." "xxxxxxxxx It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is, conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bonafide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prime facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law." 7. In view of aforesaid decision and in the facts and circumstances of the case, while I hold that long possession of petitioners and their predecessors over the plots in question raises a genuine dispute between them and the respondents on the question of title, further held that the summary proceeding under B.P.L.E. Act was uncalled for. The respondents if wanted to raise a dispute relating to right and title, should have approached a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, I set aside the Land Encroachment proceeding in question, namely, Land Encroachment case no. The respondents if wanted to raise a dispute relating to right and title, should have approached a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, I set aside the Land Encroachment proceeding in question, namely, Land Encroachment case no. 9/8889 and the impugned order dated 2.1.1989, so far it relates to the petitioners. 9. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order, as to costs.