ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN) … Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. These writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order in view of the fact that in both the cases a common order has been passed by the Collector, Gopalganj, exercising the appellate power under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) and the same is under challenge in both the writ applications. 3. Petitioners in both the applications seek quashing of the order dated 18.08.2005/01.09.2005 (Annexure 1) and the notice dated 11.05.2005 issued by the Circle Officer, Gopalganj as contained in Annexure 2 with respect to 15 decimals of land of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12017 of 2005 and 10 decimals of land of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 12024 of 2005 of plot no. 104/846 appertaining to khata no.127, Thana no. 13 of village Jagdishpur requiring the petitioners to remove pucca house constructed upon the same obstructing a public pathway within 24 hours as the land has been recorded as “Gair Mazarua Aam Rasta” in the revenue record of rights otherwise the encroachment would be forcibly removed and the cost of the same would be realized from them. 4. It is claimed by the petitioners that so far this proceeding is concerned, it is apparent that even the notice does not even bear any case number and without following the procedure land down under the Act and without issuing any notice under section 3 of the Act or passing any final order section 6 of the Act, merely a notice was issued directing the petitioners to vacate the land. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order by filing appeals before the Collector, Gopalganj bearing Appeal No. 3 of 2005 by the petitioner no. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 12017 of 2005 and Appeal No. 4 of 2005 by the husband of petitioner no. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 12024 of 2005. However, it is pointed out that since the husband of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12024 of 2005 died, subsequently, the writ application has been preferred by the heirs and legal representatives being petitioners in the said writ application. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 12024 of 2005. However, it is pointed out that since the husband of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12024 of 2005 died, subsequently, the writ application has been preferred by the heirs and legal representatives being petitioners in the said writ application. The aforesaid appeals have been dismissed on the ground that it was not open for the petitioners to obstruct the common “Gair Mazarua Pathway” which is a public land. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the orders passed by the authorities are full of lacuna. The first ground which has been raised is that on earlier occasion also the Public Land Encroachment Case No. 9/02-03 was initiated against several persons including the petitioners and after receiving the notices the petitioners appeared before the authority filed their reply to the same and ultimately, by order dated 28.06.2003 the proceeding was dropped against them. Since no appeal was preferred that order had attained finality as the same was neither quashed, altered or modified. Thus, it was not open for the authorities to again initiate an encroachment proceeding upon the self same piece of land and upon the self same ground. Secondly, it is contended that even assuming that the authorities were empowered to do so, still the authorities being creatures of the Statute, namely, the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, were obliged to follow the procedures laid down therein for initiation of the proceeding and pronouncing the final decision. Lack of proper initiation of proceeding by issuing a notice under section 3 of the Act to show-cause or even passing any final order under section 6 of the Act, a notice under section 6(e) of the Act for removal of the encroachment within stipulated time of 24 hours was wholly unwarranted, unjustified and illegal. It is next contended that the area of the plot in dispute claimed by the petitioners has been entered in the names of the petitioners by the State of Bihar in the record of rights, a copy of which has been contained in Annexure 12 showing the house of Indradeo Pandey, i.e., the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12017 of 2005, upon 15 decimals of land and the house of Arun Kumar Mishra, i.e., the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12024 of 2005 upon 11 decimals of the same. Further, considering the land as rent free, respective purchas have already been issued in favour of the petitioners.It is submitted that even the appellate authority also erred in holding that the entire 66 decimals of land of plot no. 846 was “Gair Mazarua Aam” and public pathway. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed in both the cases on behalf of the State-respondents taking a stand that the Circle Officer (respondent no. 5) was correct in passing the order under the provisions of the Act for removal of encroachment. However, not a single document has been appended with the counter affidavit either showing any case number of Public Land Encroachment Case having been initiated against the petitioners or showing any notice under section 3 of the Act having been issued or even showing any final order that has been passed under section 6 of the Act. 7. In above view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, the orders passed by the authorities cannot been sustained in law as there is nothing to show that any order has been passed by the Collector under section 6 of the Act holding the petitioners as encroachers. In the appellate order also the ground that has been raised by the petitioners does not appear to have been considered in a proper perspective. Even the entries in the revenue record of right has not been considered. No reason has been assigned as to why those documents of the State of Bihar cannot be believed. Thus, this Court is left with no option that to quash the notice and order as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 in both these writ applications. Accordingly, the same are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Circle Officer, Circle Bijaipur (respondent no. 5) for reconsideration of the case of the petitioners following the procedures as laid down in the Act and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as per the provisions thereunder and pass a speaking order within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioners. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the points available to them in law including the grounds raised earlier before the authorities concerned as well as before this Court including the question of maintainability of such proceeding. 8. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the points available to them in law including the grounds raised earlier before the authorities concerned as well as before this Court including the question of maintainability of such proceeding. 8. Accordingly, these writ applications stand allowed.