ORDER : NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. We have heard counsel for the Appellants and the respondents. 2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 11.1.2013 in C.W.J.C. No. 4670 of 2012. The learned Single Judge held that complicated questions of disputed facts were arising for consideration which was not possible in the writ jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to file civil suit for adjudication of grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the controversy in this case relates to Plot No. 718/1530 situated in Mauja Siswa Saraiyan, Bairia Anchal, Bettiah, District-West Champaran. The Appellants are in possession of 6 Kathas 14 Dhurs (50 Decimals) of the plot. It was settled in favour of the petitioner’s ancestor by the ex-landlord Bettiah Estate in Case No. 400 of 1930-31. Jamabandi No. 207 was created in favour of Thakur Jee @ Mahabir Jee represented through the petitioner’s ancestor late Radha Krishna Motani. Rent receipts were also issued in the name of the ancestor. After vesting of Zamindari, the State of Bihar also recognized the settlement created by the ex-landlord Bettiah Estate and the Jamabandi was renumbered as Jamabandi No. 204. The Appellants since the time of their ancestors have been coming in undisputed possession. The total area of Plot No. 718/1530 is 38.60 acres. The first notification under Section 29 of the Forest Act declaring certain lands in the District of West Champaran to be protected Forest did not affect the existing rights and therefore there was no occasion for the Appellants to complain. Plot Nos. 718/1531, 718/1530 and 1403 were clubbed together showing a total area of 290.70 acres. By another notification under the Wild Life Protection Act dated 5.5.1978, certain areas of the aforesaid plots were declared as “Udaipur Wildlife Sanctuary.” Again the total area of sanctuary was shown as 81.28 hectare. The area so declared with regard to Plot No. 718/1530 was 25.50 acres only while the total area of the Plot was 38.60 acres. Thereby 13.10 acres were not notified and left out. The notification under Section 21 of the Wild Life Act was issued by the Collector on 7.2.1998 calling for written claims. Since only 25.50 acres were notified, the Appellants falling in the zone of 13.10 acres concerned only with 6 Kathas 14 Dhurs (50 Decimals) did not consider it necessary to file any claim as their rights were not being affected. Since only 25.50 acres were notified, the Appellants falling in the zone of 13.10 acres concerned only with 6 Kathas 14 Dhurs (50 Decimals) did not consider it necessary to file any claim as their rights were not being affected. The Appellants continued in peaceful possession till a compliant was filed by some villagers before the Chief Minister of the State on 14.1.2009 alleging that the Appellants had encroached upon lands of the Sanctuary vide Notification No. SO-670 dated 5.5.1978. 4. Our attention is invited to the complaint which it is submitted is very general in nature and does not even specify the extent of alleged encroachment in the Sanctuary. Referring to the report of the Amin Division-II dated 31.10.2009, it is submitted that the name of the Appellants find place in Register-II Entry for Plot No. 718/1530. The Anchal Adhikari on 30.1.2010 again reiterated that the total area of Plot No. 718/1530 according to the Khatiyan was 38.60 acres from which only 25.50 acres have been acquired. It acknowledges that the Appellants were in possession of only 6 Kathas 14 Dhurs. 5. Counsel for the State submitted that the confusion has been created because of the letter of the Anchal Adhikari dated 30.1.2010 that the total area of Plot No. 718/1530 was 38.60 acres when in fact it was only 25.50 acres. Measurements have been made in presence of the Appellants. The letter of the District Land Acquisition Officer addressed to the Anchal Adhikari annexed to the counter affidavit states that the Appellants have encroached to the extent of 0.70 acres of Forest land. 6. If the State alleges encroachment, it is for the State to first arrive at a reasoned finding with regard to the total area of Plot No. 718/1530 only whereafter the question of any encroachment and the defence of the Appellants shall arise. If the State itself is vacillating and is unsure with different Officers mentioning different areas of the entire dimension of Plot No. 718/1530, we are of the opinion that they cannot proceed on a speculative understanding to hold Appellants to be an encroacher. If the State itself is vacillating and is unsure with different Officers mentioning different areas of the entire dimension of Plot No. 718/1530, we are of the opinion that they cannot proceed on a speculative understanding to hold Appellants to be an encroacher. Even if the measurements were held in presence of the Appellants, that in our opinion, will not suffice in view of the nature of his claim for settlement by the ex-landlord accepted by the State after vesting of Jamabandi, creation of an earlier Jamabandi renumbering of the Jamabandi, all of which are required to be dealt with by the authorities and a reasoned and speaking order passed. It is not the case of the respondents from their counter affidavit that any show cause notice was ever issued to the Appellants specifying for reasons spelt out why they were considered to be an encroacher and to what extent. Only after they inform the grounds can the appellants file an effective reply. 7. In the facts of the case, if the Appellants claim undisputed possession since settlement from 1930-31, the letter of the Amin states that there is entry in the name of the Appellants in Register-II of the Khatiyan, the onus first lies on the respondents before it can be shifted to the Appellants. 8. We are therefore of the opinion that it is the respondents who are raising issue of disputed facts and not the Appellants. We therefore set aside the order under Appeal but with liberty to the respondents to issue a show cause notice in writing to the Appellants, grant them a personal hearing and then pass a reasoned and speaking order considering all aspects of the matter including any documentary evidence and oral submissions made before them. 9. In the facts of the case, we therefore direct that the Appellants shall not be disturbed from the area of 6 Kathas 14 Dhurs, but subject to the final order that may be passed by the authorities. 10. The Appeal is allowed.