By Court.- This appeal has been filed against the order dated 3.6.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2574 of 2003 by which he had been pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioners, appellants herein, to appear before the respondent authority i.e. the Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Dhanbad, and raise all objections bringing all facts to the notice of the authority, who was required to decide the dispute as to whether the petitioners had indulged in encroachment of any forest land. 2. The petitioners, appellants herein, have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it was submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the petitioners-appellants had already filed a Title Suit with regard to the title of the land, alleged to have been encroached by the appellants. It is further submitted that a decree was initially passed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants in regard to the land, alleged to have been encroached, for which a show cause notice has been issued to the appellants. The decree, however, was reversed by the 1st appellate court against which a Second Appeal at the instance of the appellants bearing Second Appeal No. 182 of 2002 is already pending in this Court and, therefore, it was submitted that when the title of the land, which is alleged to have been encroached by the appellants, is a subject matter of a civil proceeding, as indicated hereinbefore, a show cause notice for eviction of the appellants from the land, in question, ought to have been quashed and set aside as ultimately it is the Second Appeal which will decide the fate of the title of the land, alleged to have been encroached by the appellants. 3. We find sufficient force in the argument, advanced by learned counsel for the appellants for if the land, alleged to have been encroached by the appellants, is a subject matter of contest in the Second Appeal, which is pending before this Court, as referred to hereinbefore, it is not open for the respondent authorities to issue a show cause notice to the appellants for eviction as the appellants would have been justified in their action only if the land, in question, was undisputedly a public land in which case the eviction notice at the instance of the respondent State could be held sustainable. 4. 4. At this stage we find no justification as to how the State authorities can be permitted to issue a show cause notice to the appellants when the matter is sub-judice before the High Court in Second Appeal in regard to the title, nature and character of the land, which is alleged to have been encroached by the appellants. We see no reason as to why the appellants should have been directed to appear before the Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad Forest Division for which a show cause notice has been issued to the appellants as that would amount to allowing a parallel proceeding of election of the land, in question. 5. Hence at this stage, we dispose of this appeal with a direction that the respondent-Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad Forest Division shall keep the proceeding in regard to the encroachment of the land in abeyance with liberty to the respondents to reopen the proceeding of encroachment and proceed in the matter in case the Second Appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants, is dismissed by the High Court. If, however, the appeal preferred by the appellants is allowed by the High Court, it goes without saying that the proceeding initiated by the respondent-Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad Forest Division shall be treated as dropped.