JUDGEMENT Birendra Prasad Verma, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of Respondents. However, learned Counsel for the intervener is present and has been heard in support of his intervention petition vide I.A. No. 1104 of 2010. Even counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the Respondents.. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by last portion of the order dated 24.8.1992 (Annexure-9) passed in Land Encroachment Case No. 1 of 1992 by the Respondent Anchaladhikari, Cheriyabariyarpur in the district of Begusarai, whereby though, a declaration has been made that a plot of land bearing Khata No. 115 appertaining to Khesra No. 1039 area 7 Katha 8 dhurs situate at village/ Mauza Pabra , P.S. Cheriyabariyarpur, District Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute) is not a public land under the meaning of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short Act), yet in the light of the direction issued by the Respondent District Collector, and the letter dated 28.7.1992 issued by S.D.O. Manjhaul, the rent receipt issued in favour of the Petitioner has been cancelled and direction has been issued for removal of the alleged encroachment made by the Petitioner over the land in question. 3. It appears that a proceeding in terms of Section 3 of the Act was initiated by the Respondent Anchaladhikari, the Collector under the Act, and in response to the notice the Petitioner appeared and filed his show cause claiming there in that land in question is his private land and it has never vested in the State of Bihar. Very maintainability of the proceeding was challenged on behalf of the Petitioner. It was further claimed, that though land in question was donated for the purpose of setting up a Girls School, Pabra, but certain conditions were indicated in the aforesaid deed of gift. One of the conditions was that if for any reasons the girl school ceases to exist, then land in question will revert back to the donor. 4. After hearing the parties, the final order dated 24.8.1992 was passed by the Respondent Anchaladhikari in terms of Section 6 of the Act, wherein it was held that claim of the Petitioner regarding his right and title over the land in question appears to be correct and he has been issued rent receipt up to the year 1991-1992. 4. After hearing the parties, the final order dated 24.8.1992 was passed by the Respondent Anchaladhikari in terms of Section 6 of the Act, wherein it was held that claim of the Petitioner regarding his right and title over the land in question appears to be correct and he has been issued rent receipt up to the year 1991-1992. It has been further noticed by the Respondent Anchaladhikari that a proceeding under Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated between the Petitioner at one side and Local Mukhiya at the other side, but that was finally dropped with an observation that aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court for declaration of his right and title over the land in question. 5. After giving all these reasoning, the Circle Officer came to a conclusive finding that it is not a public land under the meaning of Act and accordingly, proceeding was dropped. Yet in the light of order and direction issued by the Respondent District Collector as also by Respondent S.D.O. by his letter dated 28.7.1992, rent receipts issued to the Petitioner with respect to the land in question was directed to be cancelled and local police was directed to remove the encroachment allegedly made by the Petitioner over the land in question. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that once the Respondent Anchaladhikari came to a finding that land in question is not a public land under the meaning of the Act and encroachment proceeding was dropped, then direction issued in the last portion of the impugned order for removal of encroachment by the Petitioner in compliance of certain direction issued by the District Collector and S.D.O. is wholly without jurisdiction and is fit to be set aside by this Court. Learned Counsel appears to be correct. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to state here that I.A. No. 1104 of 2010 has been filed by one Satyadeo Singh of village Pabra praying therein that he may be added as a party Respondent and may be permitted to oppose the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the intervener has fairly submitted that intervener has no personal right with respect to the land in question, but he has filed the intervention petition for ventilating the grievances of general people of the village. Learned Counsel for the intervener has fairly submitted that intervener has no personal right with respect to the land in question, but he has filed the intervention petition for ventilating the grievances of general people of the village. He has also stated that in view of the stay order passed by this Court by order dated 27.11.1992, local administration is not taking any steps for removal of the encroachment. After having considered the statements made in the interlocutory application and in the back ground of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the intervener is not a necessary party in the present proceeding. Accordingly I.A. No. 1104 of 2010 is rejected. 8. Though the present writ petition was filed in the year 1992, the impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.1992 and writ petition was admitted for final hearing by an order dated 23.4.1993, yet counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of Respondents, as a result thereof, the averments made in the writ petition have to be accepted. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on consideration of materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the direction issued by the Respondent Circle Officer by the impugned order dated 24.8.1992(Annexure-9) for cancellation of the rent receipts and for removal of encroachment, allegedly made by the Petitioner over the land in question, are wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and contrary to the mandate of the Act. It cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned portion of order dated 24.8.1992 (Annexure-9) is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. 10. However, if some private individual or the State of Bihar claims right and title over the land in question, then he or it as the case may be, shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for getting such right and title declared in accordance with law. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.