ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that Encroachment Case No. 15 of 201314 was never initiated far less conducted, in accordance with law and that the proceeding is a sham or alternatively to quash the entire proceeding in Encroachment Case No. 15 of 201314 including order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Circle Officer, Govindpur, and with a further prayer for restraining the respondents from acting pursuant to or giving effect to the purported order dated 30.09.2014 passed in Encroachment Case No. 15 of 201314. Several other prayers, seeking enquiry into the genuineness of the Encroachment Case No. 15 of 201314 by an independent body, seeking possession of the illegal and unlawful demolition of the building and a declaration that the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Case No. 04 of 195455 has lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, have also been incorporated in the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts disclosed in the writ petition are summarised hereunder:- The petitioner claims to have purchased a piece of land vide Sale Deed No. 2174/1908 dated 14.02.2011 from Motilal Parmanik, Subodh Chandra Bhandari, Smt. Monika Devi, Kartik Parmanik, Smt. Renuka Devi and Konika Devi. The land situated at Mouza No. 166, Khata No. 19, Plot No. 1692 admeasuring 4.3 decimal at Govindpur, Dhanbad was recorded in the name of the one Sharda Napit and Dhiru Napit in the Cadastral Survey Record of Right and till 2011, rent receipt was issued in the name of Dhiru Napit. The said Dhiru Napit and Sharda Napit had surrendered their interest with respect to land appertaining to Plot Nos. 1537, 1538 and 1691 through Deed of Surrender No. 3253 dated 21.09.1934, in favour of Raja Thakur Chandra Mohatri Singh, who transferred his right, title and interest in favour of Banglu Charan Dutta through Deed No. 3273 dated 24.09.1934. The vendors of the petitioner filed a case for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the property in question, which is the schedule property in Sale Deed dated 14.02.2011. The case was registered as Title Suit No. 192/2001-02, which was decreed vide order dated 24.08.2004 by the Sub-Judge-IV, Dhanbad. The vendors of the petitioner filed a case for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the property in question, which is the schedule property in Sale Deed dated 14.02.2011. The case was registered as Title Suit No. 192/2001-02, which was decreed vide order dated 24.08.2004 by the Sub-Judge-IV, Dhanbad. Thereafter, Execution Case No. 3/19/2006-07 was filed by the vendors of the petitioner for issuance of writ of delivery of possession of the decretal land. The report submitted by the Nazir in the Execution Case discloses that the delivery of possession of the decretal land was handed over to the decree-holders on 23.01.2011 and thereafter, vide Sale Deed dated 14.02.2011, the land in question was transferred by a registered sale deed to the petitioner. On 06.11.2014, one Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, District Education Officer visited the premises of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises informing the petitioner that the said land was already acquired by the government. The petitioner was informed that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has passed an order and in compliance thereof, the District Education Officer directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. The respondent no.2Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad without issuing any showcause notice and without following due process of law threatened the petitioner to evict him from the land in question with the help of police force. The petitioner obtained the document of the Land Acquisition Case No. 04/1954-55, which discloses that Plot No. 1692 was not the subject matter in the acquisition proceeding and even the name of the owner of Plot No. 1692 has been wrongly mentioned. The petitioner has purchased the land in question from the legal heirs of the recorded tenant. The land in question was never acquired nor any notice was issued to the recorded tenant and even the compensation has not been paid to the recorded tenant or any other person. It is stated that the building standing on the land in question was a two storied building, in which several shops were given on rent by the petitioner. The building was demolished by the respondent no.2 on the pretext that the land belongs to the Basic Training School, Govindpur. The proceeding in Land Acquisition Case No.04/1954-55 discloses that compensation was paid to Banglu Charan Dutta for Plot No. 1692 however, Plot No. 1692 was not included in the proposed plan. The building was demolished by the respondent no.2 on the pretext that the land belongs to the Basic Training School, Govindpur. The proceeding in Land Acquisition Case No.04/1954-55 discloses that compensation was paid to Banglu Charan Dutta for Plot No. 1692 however, Plot No. 1692 was not included in the proposed plan. The name of Madan Napit and others are recorded in Revisional Survey in respect of Khatian No. 424, Plot No. 1594 admeasuring 12 Decimals, which was carved out and made from C.S. Khatian Nos. 1692 and 1691 and the Revisional Survey was finally published on 06.06.2003 under Section 83(2) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. In view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Case No.04/195455 would be deemed to have lapsed. In the letters and telegram message allegedly sent to the petitioner, there is no reference of any proceeding under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act. In the counter-affidavit also, no averment was made with respect to initiation of a proceeding under the Public Land Encroachment Act. 3. Since W.P.(C) No. 5787 of 2014 was listed together, the respondent-State of Jharkhand relied on counter-affidavit filed in the said case. In W.P.(C) No. 5787 of 2014, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 stating that the land in question at Mouza No. 166, Khata No. 19, Plot No. 1692 at Govindpur, Dhanbad was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No.04/195455 for the purpose of construction of Basic Training School at Dhanbad. The acquisition proceeding was published in Gazette by the State of Bihar. The total area acquired was 7.04 acres including the land in question for which, compensation was paid to the land owners. Vide Gazette Notification No. 654 dated 01.02.1954, the acquisition was notified in the Bihar Gazette (Part-II) dated 10.02.1954 at page21. The total area of Plot No. 1692 is 5 Decimal only. With respect to Plot No. 1692, compensation has been paid to one Banglu Charan Dutta on 31.01.1956. In Title Suit No.192 of 2001, the actual owner of Plot No. 1692 was not a party nor the State was a contesting party. The revenue record discloses that the name of Banglu Charan Dutta is recorded in Khatiyan. With respect to Plot No. 1692, compensation has been paid to one Banglu Charan Dutta on 31.01.1956. In Title Suit No.192 of 2001, the actual owner of Plot No. 1692 was not a party nor the State was a contesting party. The revenue record discloses that the name of Banglu Charan Dutta is recorded in Khatiyan. It is denied that no proceeding was initiated rather, the competent authority issued several notices for eviction of the petitioner. Measurement of the land in question was taken in presence of the Magistrate and in presence of the petitioner and after following due process of law, the petitioner has been evicted. The petitioner and other persons illegally encroached upon the land of the school and therefore, the school could not be fully constructed, even after lapse of more than 60 years. It is disputed that the Motilal Parmanik is the actual land owner, who has allegedly executed the sale deed with respect to land in Plot No. 1692, in favour of the petitioner. In view of letters dated 24.05.2013 and 25.06.2013 of the Area Education Officer, Govindpur, which indicate that the land of the school has been encroached by the antisocial elements. A news and a report was also published in the daily newspaper. In the aforesaid facts, a detailed enquiry report was prepared on the direction of Deputy Commissioner dated 10.07.2013 and a proceeding under the Public Land Encroachment Act was initiated vide Land Encroachment Case No. 15/ 2013-14. On 17.07.2013 notices were issued to the petitioner however, he refused to accept the same and therefore, it was affixed on 20.08.2013 on the building constructed on the encroached land. Thereafter, final order was passed on 30.09.2014 and the Magistrate was deputed for removing the encroachment. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without serving notice upon the petitioner, the respondents have adopted substituted mode of service at the first instance itself. No Form-II was ever issued and thus, the proceeding in Encroachment Case No.15/201314 was in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Jharkhand Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without serving notice upon the petitioner, the respondents have adopted substituted mode of service at the first instance itself. No Form-II was ever issued and thus, the proceeding in Encroachment Case No.15/201314 was in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Jharkhand Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act. In terms of Section 6 of the Act, after a final order is passed which, in the present case was allegedly passed on 30.09.2014, a further notice is required to be issued, which admittedly has not been issued in the present case. If a proceeding culminates in deprivation/ dispossession of a person from property, the requirement with respect to service of notice etc. must be strictly complied with. Neither the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer nor the affidavit of the Headmaster indicates initiation of land encroachment case. Relying on decision in “Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.”, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and in “M/s. Magnum Promoters P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.” passed in I.A. No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011, it is contended that since the actual physical possession of the land was not taken, the acquisition proceeding would lapse and thus, the respondents were not justified in demolishing the building standing on the land belonging to the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A. raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is submitted that under the Jharkhand Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of appeal. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised serious dispute with respect to service of notice etc., which can be effectfully adjudicated by the appellate authority. He further submits that the writ petition has been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The petitioner has asserted that he purchased the property in question on 14.02.2011 and thereafter, rent receipt was issued in his name however, the document filed as Annexure2 to the writ petition discloses that the rent receipt was issued on 07.02.2011, that is, prior to registration of the alleged sale deed. The petitioner has asserted that he purchased the property in question on 14.02.2011 and thereafter, rent receipt was issued in his name however, the document filed as Annexure2 to the writ petition discloses that the rent receipt was issued on 07.02.2011, that is, prior to registration of the alleged sale deed. The learned G.A. further submits that the petitioner has not acquired any valid right, title or interest over the land in question which has already been acquired for public purpose, way back in the year, 1954-55. The encroachment has been removed after following due process of law and no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. The petitioner has made false statement in the present proceeding in as much as, he has the knowledge of the Land Encroachment proceeding and the measurement of the encroached land was taken in his presence. 7. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to orders dated 25.01.2014, 27.02.2014 and 15.04.2014 and submitted that there are apparent interpolations made in the date of the alleged encroachment proceeding. The entire order-sheet of the encroachment case was written in one pen and in one day and it is a fabricated document. It is submitted that a mistake can occur once however, on three consecutive dates, mistake in the date of hearing has been corrected, which apparently is interpolation in the order-sheet. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The proceedings dated 25.01.2014, 27.02.2014 and 15.04.2014 would disclose that the presiding officer was not holding the Court and therefore, next date was given. No significant order has been thus passed either on 27.02.2014 or 15.04.2014 and therefore, there is no reason to assume interpolation in the order-sheet. The orders dated 20.09.2013 and 30.12.2013 indicate that notice was served however, the opposite party did not appear. There is a gap of about 3 and half months between the date of next hearing, when the service report was first submitted before the Court. There is a presumption in favour of the judicial and official act that those have been regularly performed. There is a gap of about 3 and half months between the date of next hearing, when the service report was first submitted before the Court. There is a presumption in favour of the judicial and official act that those have been regularly performed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the possession was not taken by the respondent-State, the acquisition proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed, is liable to be rejected. Merely, because the petitioner alleges that his vendors were in possession of the land in question, the specific stand taken by the State that the land in question was acquired and possession was taken, cannot be disbelieved. Moreover, it does not appear from the record that though the compensation was received by one Banglu Charan Dutta, the vendors of the petitioner or their predecessors ever raised any dispute with respect to their claim for compensation. Once, it is admitted that compensation is received by Banglu Charan Dutta, which has not been disputed by any other person, there would be a presumption in law that the person who has received compensation, about 60 years back, was the original owner of the land. Moreover, the plea that the acquisition proceeding would be deemed to have been lapsed is not available to the petitioner. Such a plea can be raised by the land owner, in whose name, the award was prepared and/ or his successor. It is well settled that even an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable at the instance of a subsequent purchaser. In support of his claim, the petitioner has produced copy of a sale deed and a rent receipt dated 07.02.2011 issued in the name of Dhiru Napit. The petitioner has stated that the Dhiru Napit and Sharda Napit had surrendered their interest in favour of Raja Thakur Chandra Mohatri Singh on 21.09.1934. According to the petitioner himself, the land came in possession of one Banglu Charan Dutta and Title Suit No. 192/200102 were instituted by Motilal Parmanik and others. In the writ petition, it has nowhere averred by the petitioner why the rent receipt was issued in the name of Dhiru Napit. The petitioner has annexed only one receipt dated 07.02.2011. Only some of the vendors of the petitioner are parties in the title suit. In the writ petition, it has nowhere averred by the petitioner why the rent receipt was issued in the name of Dhiru Napit. The petitioner has annexed only one receipt dated 07.02.2011. Only some of the vendors of the petitioner are parties in the title suit. The title suit was filed in the year, 2001 however, in the writ petition, there is no detail disclosed with respect to possession over the land in question in the last 60 years. It is also not disclosed how the land in question came in possession of the defendants of Title Suit No. 192/2001-02. The petitioner has nowhere stated that he purchased the land and building constructed thereon. No detail with respect to the building and the year of construction have been disclosed in the writ petition. The petitioner has not disclosed the name of the tenants, the nature of the tenancy, the date of the induction of the tenants and the date on which the tenants were allegedly inducted in different shops besides, who among the predecessor-in-interest of the alleged vendors of the petitioner or the defendants of Title Suit No. 192/2001-02 constructed the building. The writ petition is lacking in all necessary details. The respondents have specifically pleaded that Plot No. 1692 was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No. 04/1954-55 and compensation has been paid to the recorded raiyat. In the writ petition, the petitioner has only stated that in the land acquisition case, name of owner of Plot No. 1692 is wrongly mentioned. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that no notice was ever served upon the petitioner. The respondents have strongly refuted the allegation of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case, I am not inclined to examine this plea of the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of the order is made ready. Since, the petitioner has been granted liberty to approach the appellate authority, the plea regarding service of notice can be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority besides, any other plea which has not been considered in the present order. Since, the petitioner has been granted liberty to approach the appellate authority, the plea regarding service of notice can be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority besides, any other plea which has not been considered in the present order. In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the property confined in Mouza No. 166, Khata No. 19, Plot No. 1692 admeasuring 4.3 Decimal at Govindpur, Dhanbad till the application moved by the petitioner seeking an interim order is disposed of by the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within three months. If no appeal is preferred within time specified above, the order of “status-quo” shall stand vacated automatically.