ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are having their house over different plots, which is recorded in the name of Union of India as per Record of Rights finally published under Section 103 A(2) of the B.T. Act 1885 on 12.4.1958. Column 5 of the Record of Rights indicates that the nature of land is a concrete house. In column no.7 of the Record of Rights it has further been stated that the land is in forcible possession of the ancestors of the petitioners. 3. These writ petitions have been filed assailing the order dated 19.8.2010 passed by the Circle Officer, Kadwa, Katihar under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking the petitioners to remove their forcible possession from the aforesaid land, which order has also been affirmed in appeal vide order dated 12.2.2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Katihar and Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia under order dated 18/31.5.2011 contained in Annexures-3, 2, 1 in the writ petitions. Earlier petitioners were served with notice to show cause as to why directions be not issued under the Act to forcibly remove their possession from the lands in question. In response to the said notice petitioners submitted before the authorities that perusal of the Record of Rights published as far back on 12.4.1958, Annexure-5 (Annexure-6 in C.W.J.C. No.8223 of 2012) would indicate that petitioners through their ancestors are in possession of the lands in question for more than 50 years and thereby acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question. In this connection, it is also pointed out that all along i.e. from before the commencement of the proceeding for preparation of Record of Rights the State and its functionaries were/are aware that petitioners are in forcible possession of the lands in question but for reasons of public interest that the petitioners are below poverty line action was not taken to remove their forcible possession and thereby petitioners have acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question. Aforesaid plea has been negated by the authorities below without disputing the entries made in the Record of Rights or the genuineness of the Record of Rights. 4. By filing these petitions learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in the case of Brij Bhukan Kalwar and others Vs. Aforesaid plea has been negated by the authorities below without disputing the entries made in the Record of Rights or the genuineness of the Record of Rights. 4. By filing these petitions learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in the case of Brij Bhukan Kalwar and others Vs. S.D.O. Siwan and others, reported in AIR 1955 Patna 1, paragraph-20 and the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another, reported in (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 134, paragraph 8, 9 submitted that nature of Gair Mazrua Am land(public land) keep on changing, petitioners having acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question by raising house over the same 50 years earlier, in which petitioners are even now residing, the present proceeding under the Act ought not to have been taken against them. With reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided under the Act for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bonafide claim or title. 5. The very perusal of the Record of Rights, Annexure-5, (Annexure-6 in C.W.J.C. No.8223 of 2012) indicate that the title holder of the land is the Union of India but petitioners are in possession thereof by virtue of forcible possession of the house raised thereon and thereby acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question, so submitted counsel for the petitioners. 6. Counsel for the State opposed the submission and submitted that the petitioners have continued in possession over the lands of the Union of India but as the same is now required for public purpose, the authorities have taken action against the petitioners under the Act so as to secure its possession for public purpose. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioners over the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is also misplaced. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioners over the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is also misplaced. He pointed out that in the Full Bench case of Brij Bhukan Kalwar (supra), High Court observed that if a person by efflux of time has acquired title by adverse possession to a property which was at one time a public property that property cannot be taken by the State by resorting to the provisions of the Act, provided the person occupying the public property has obtained declaration that he has acquired right of adverse possession over the said property. From the Record of Rights, itself it is evident that the lands in question is the property of the Union over which petitioners are claiming title by adverse possession but till date no such declaration has been made by any court, as such, according to learned counsel for the State reliance placed over the Full Bench judgment of the High Court is misconceived. With reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) learned counsel for the State submitted that the lands in question were acquired by the Government of Hyderabad for Osmania University, the University lost title to the property by operation of law of limitation. The State Government resorted to summary proceeding for eviction of the respondents from the lands in question. The Hon’ble Supreme Court having considered the submissions observed that if there is bonafide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it. Learned counsel for the State submitted with reference to the aforesaid judgment that in the instant case, there is hardly any dispute about the ownership of the property, as it is admitted position that the lands in question is recorded in the name of the Union of India. The claim of the petitioners is only of having acquired title over the lands of the Union of India through adverse possession. Till date, however, no such declaration has been made in their favour, as such, it cannot be said that petitioners have acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question. 7. The claim of the petitioners is only of having acquired title over the lands of the Union of India through adverse possession. Till date, however, no such declaration has been made in their favour, as such, it cannot be said that petitioners have acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question. 7. The authorities of the State were aware about the possession of the petitioners over the lands in question right from the date of publication of the Record of Rights, if not prior thereto, in my opinion, therefore, the authorities of the State were required to have taken steps for removal of the encroachment by the petitioners under the Act earlier or in any case within the time provided under Article 112 of the Limitation Act. That authorities having not taken steps for removal of encroachment by the petitioners from the lands in question within the time provided under the Limitation Act, they are stopped from resorting to summary proceeding for removal of encroachment by the petitioners as in the meanwhile, petitioners claim that they have acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question. Petitioners, in order to vindicate their claim of having acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question, in my opinion, should approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their right of adverse possession over the lands in question. The impugned orders passed under the Act shall, however, not come in the way of the petitioners in obtaining declaration from the competent civil court that petitioners through their ancestors acquired right of adverse possession over the lands in question. As the petitioners have raised their house over the lands in question in which they are residing for over 50 years, I dispose of the writ petition(s) granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction within two months from today and obtain interim order of protection from the competent civil court.