Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This revision petition has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the courts below regarding prayer for injunction made from the side of the petitioner in Title Suit no. 32 of 1997. 3. The plaintiff has claimed in the suit that he has right, title and interest over the suit land and he has not encroached any Government land. Some Government officials, who were added as defendants, were making all attempts to dispossess the petitioner illegally and forcefully. On previous occasion also he moved before this Court under writ jurisdiction and it was observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move before the civil court for his right and title etc. It is the settled principle of law that even if there is any encroachment to Government land by any individual then the authority of the Government is entitled to make clear of such encroachment through encroachment proceeding being brought after giving notice as contemplated under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1994, (sic 1956). 4. It does not appear from the orders passed by both the courts below as to whether there was any initiation of encroachment proceeding under the Act and the petitioner has filed an affidavit to the effect that up-till-now to his knowledge no such encroachment proceeding has been initiated by the opposite party. In that view of the matter, when the opposite parties have not initiated an encroachment proceeding up-till-now, the appreciation (sicapprehension ?) in the mind of the petitioner can be set at rest only with this observation and direction that the petitioner should not be dispossessed by the opposite parties during the pendency of the suit forcefully but they shall be at liberty to proceed legally as per the Act itself. In that way, the petitioner shall get opportunity to raise his case. 5. With this direction and observation this revision petition is allowed by setting aside the orders passed by both the courts below.