ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Singh for the petitioners, Mr. Dhrub Narayan for the Respondent Zila Parishad (for short the ZP) and counsel for the respondents 7 to 50. 2. Parties have exchanged their pleadings. 3. The petitioners, 41 in number, have joined hands in filing the present writ application questioning the legality/sustainability of the notice dated 28.12.2012 issued by the Chief Executive Officer cum Deputy Development Commissioner of the ZP, Saran at Chapra. By the said notice the petitioners were asked to vacate the land of the ZP which was found to be an encroachment by the petitioners. The petitioners also prayed for some ancillary reliefs. 4. Considering the factual profile of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were not disputing the title of the land in question with the respondent ZP, this Court, having found that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity before directing such forcible eviction from the plot/land in possession by an order dated 15.01.2013 directed the petitioners to submit their cause against the said order treating it to be a notice and the competent authority of the Respondent ZP was directed to afford a hearing to the petitioners and thereafter record a finding. Relevant part of the said order merits to be noticed and are extracted herein-below:- In the circumstances, keeping the writ application pending, this Court directs the authorities to treat the said order of the Deputy Development Commissioner dated 28.12.2012, as contained in Annexure-13, issued to one of the petitioners and similar other notice to other petitioners as show cause notice, give them two weeks time from today to file their reply to the same and thereafter fix up a date of hearing of the matter. The hearing will be accordingly held, the materials placed by the petitioners shall be considered and thereafter final orders in accordance with law shall be passed. In the process, if necessary, the concerned authority of the Zila Parishad may also hear the allottees. Here it may be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that since the learned Single Judge in his said order dated 20.09.2012 has used the expression ‘encroachers’ the authorities of the Zila Parishad may act with a pre-conceived notion in the mind that the petitioners are to be treated as encroachers. Here it may be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that since the learned Single Judge in his said order dated 20.09.2012 has used the expression ‘encroachers’ the authorities of the Zila Parishad may act with a pre-conceived notion in the mind that the petitioners are to be treated as encroachers. This Court makes it clear that the said expression used by the learned Single Judge should not be taken by the authorities of the Zila Parishad in the consideration and they shall apply their independent mind to the matter on the basis of materials produced by the petitioners. Till the fresh final decision on merits is taken by the authorities of the Zila Parishad the petitioners shall not be disturbed. The authorities are directed to complete the hearing, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on merits and produce the same on the records of this case within two months. Put up after two months. 5. Indisputably, in the light of the said order the case record bearing Case No. 01/2013 was opened in which the petitioners were afforded opportunity of hearing. On perusal of the relevant/connected document and the cause shown by the petitioners the respondent Chief Executive Officer passed an order dated 12.03.2013 whereby it was, inter alia, found that petitioners were allowed to continue on the land by granting receipts in payment of rent for some period of time by the Junior Officers of the respondent ZP. At no point of time any settlement either on permanent or temporary basis was ever made with the petitioners under a conscious decision of the respondent ZP. At no point of time any settlement either on permanent or temporary basis was ever made with the petitioners under a conscious decision of the respondent ZP. This Court would notice the relevant findings of the respondent Chief Executive Officer in the said order herein-below which is part of the writ application (I.A. No. 4707/2013):- lquokbZ ds nkSjku i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr rF;ksa] lefiZr dkxtkrksa ,oa ftyk vfHk;ark }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu ds voyksdu ls fuEufyf[kr rF; Li"V gksrs gS%& fn?kokjk fLFkr fn?kokjk LVs'ku QhMj iFk ds mRrj dh vksj vofLFkr ftyk ifj”kn~ dh Hkwfe ij fufeZr >ksiM+h ;k xqeVh ds :i esa nqdkuksa dh vLFkk;h cankscLrh okf"kZd rkSj ij dh tkrh jgh gS] ftls izR;sd o”kZ lsyohM ds ek/;e ls O;olkf;;ksa dks vLFkk;h rkSj ij cankscLrh dh tkrh FkhA bu rF;ksa dks uq:ygksnk ,oa vU; i{kdkjksa us Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA lquokbZ ds dze esa muds }kjk crk;k x;k gS fd ftyk ifj”kn~ ds lkFk muds }kjk dksbZ ,djkjukek ugha fd;k x;k gSA uq:ygksnk ,oa vU; i{kdkjksa ds }kjk crk;k x;k gS fd mDr of.kZr Hkwfe ij yEcs le; ls os viuk O;olk; dj jgs gSa rFkk blds fy, ftyk ifj”kn~ esa fu/kkZfjr fdjk;k tek dj ikorh jlhn Hkh izkIr dh xbZ gSA ijUrq ;g Li"V ugha gks ik;k gS fd muds }kjk ,djkjukek fd;s fcuk ftyk ifj"kn~ dh Hkwfe ij fdl izdkj viuk nkok fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk ;fn mUgsa fu;eksa dh tkudkjh ugha gS rks D;ksa ugha mUgksaus ftyk ifj"kn~ dks bl lanHkZ esa iwoZ esa viuk vkosnu lefiZr fd;kA ftyk ifj"kn~ }kjk ijEijkuqlkj fd;s tk jgs vLFkk;h cankscLrh ds LFkku ij fn?kokjk cktkj ds lkSUn;hZdj.k gsrq o”kZ 2002 esa ftyk ifj"kn~ }kjk fy, x, fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa 129 xqeVh@>ksiM+h dks gVkdj muds LFkku ij 135 LFkk;h iDdk nqdku dk fuekZ.k djkus gsrq dkjZokbZ izkjaHk dh xbZA ftyk ifj"kn~ ds mDr fuekZ.k dh i`”VHkwfe ;g Fkh fd iwoZ ds vLFkk;h cankscLrh;ksa }kjk fu;fer :i ls ftyk ifj"kn~ esa cankscLrh dh jkf'k tek ugha djkbZ tkrh Fkh] ftlls ftyk ifj"kn~ ds jktLo dh gkfu gks jgh Fkh lkFk gh cktkj lkSUn;hZdj.k rFkk vf/kd jktLo dh izkfIr gsrq ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA cankscLrh dh izfdz;k esa ,d ‘kRrZ ;g j[kk x;k Fkk fd iwoZ ds vLFkk;h cankscLrhnkj nqdkunkjksa dks nqdku vkoaVu esa izkFkfedrk fn;k tk;sxk] ysfdu Loa; vLFkk;h cankscLrhnkjksa }kjk gh bldk fojks/k fd;k tkrk jgk] ftlls mDr izfdz;k vc rd iw.kZ ugha gks ik;h gSA ftyk ifj"kn~ vius iwoZ ds fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa QhMj iFk vofLFkr Hkw&[kaM dh cankscLrh dj nqdkuksa dk fuekZ.k djuk pkgrh gS rFkk ftyk ifj"kn~ dh fjDr Hkwfe ij fof/k lEer :i ls ;FkklaHko vf/kdkf/kd yksxksa dks nqdkuksa dh cankscLrh dj u flQZ ftyk ifj"kn~ ds yksxksa dks vkthfodk@[kqnjk O;kikj gsrq lqfo/kk miyC/k djkrs gq, vk; esa o`f) djuk pkgrh gS vfirq ,slk dj LFkkuh; cktkj dk lkSUn;hZdj.k Hkh djuk pkgrh gSA uq:ygksnk }kjk viuk i{k j[kk x;k gS fd os oS| cankscLrh/kkjh gSaA vr% mUgsa vfrdze.kdkjh ekudj mDr Hkw&[kaM [kkyh djus gsrq vkns'k ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA ijUrq uq:ygksnk ,oa vU; tks oRrZeku esa ftyk ifj"kn~ ds oS/k cankscLr/kkjh ugha gS blfy, mUgsa vfrdze.kdkjh ds ifjHkk”kk ds varxZr j[kk x;k gSA bl fcUnq ds vkyksd esa muds }kjk dksbZ oS/kkfud nLrkost miyC/k ugha djk;k tk ldkA oLrqr% ftyk ifj"kn~ }kjk muds lkFk dHkh dksbZ ,djkjukek gh ugha fd;k gSA ,djkjukek dh ifjfLFkfr esa Hkh ftyk ifj"kn~ vius 'kRrksZa ds vk/kkj ij viuh tehu ij ls fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks leqfpr volj nsrs gq, Hkw&[kaM [kkyh djus gsrq vkns'k fuxZr djus ds fy, l{ke gSA lquokbZ ds dze esa ;g rF; Hkh Li"V gqvk gS fd ftyk ifj”kn~ dsoy >ksiM+h@xqeVh ds :i esa vLFkk;h lajpuk ds :i esa gh nqdkuksa dh vLFkk;h cankscLrh djrh jgh gS rFkk bl lanHkZ esa cankscLrhnkjksa dks mDr >ksiM+h@xqeVh dks izfrLFkkfir vFkok ejEefr dj iDdk lajpuk fuekZ.k dh dksbZ vuqefr ugha nh tkrh gSA tcfd lquokbZ ds dze esa ;g rF; izdk’k esa vk;k gS fd vukf/kd`r :i ls nqdkuksa ds iDdk nhokj dh lajpuk dk fuekZ.k dj fy;k x;k tks fcYdqy gh voS/kkfud ,oa vuqfpr gSA bl okn ds i{kdkj uq:ygksnk ,oa vU; 44 rFkk ‘ks”k 218 dqy 263 vfrdze.kdkfj;ksa }kjk ftyk ifj”kn~ dh fn?kokjk vofLFkr LVs’ku QhMj iFk ds mRrjh ,oa nf{k.kh fljs ij vukf/kd`r ,oa voS/k :i ls dCtk djrs gq, LFkk;h vFkok vLFkk;h lajpuk dk fuekZ.k dj fy;k x;k gS rFkk ftyk ifj"kn }kjk viuh tehu ij nqdkuksa dh cankscLrh fd;s tkus dh izfdz;k esa tkucw>dj vojks/k fd;k tk jgk gS] ftlls ftyk ifj”kn~ dks jktLo dh vikj {kfr gks jgh gS rFkk ftyk ifj”kn~ iwoZ esa vius 85 vkoafV;ksa dks fu;eksa ds vkyksd esa nqdku miyC/k ugha djk ik jgh gSA mijksDr foospu ls eSa iw.kZr% larq”V gwW fd bl okn ds i{kdkj Jh uq:ygksnk ,oa 44 vU; rFkk 218 vU; lanfHkZr vfrdze.kdkfj;ksa dk iz'uxr Hkwfe ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ oS/kkfud nkok ugha curk gSA 6. Before this Court would proceed to examine further contention of the parties be it noted that private respondents of the present case had earlier filed a writ application in this Court vide CWJC No. 307 of 2012. The said application was disposed of on 20.09.2012 (Annexure-D to the counter affidavit of respondent 7 to 50). It is apposite to extract the said order which reads thus:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the light of my order dated 14.9.2012 counsel for District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, respondent No. 2 states that encroachment from the lands in question shall be removed within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before respondent No. 2. Having removed the encroachment 44 petitioners who are amongst the 85 allottees referred to in the report bearing letter No. 514 dated 26.5.2012 submitted by the District Transport Officer cum Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra to the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate shall be provided with the shops as early as possible, in any case within six months from the date of removal of the encroachment. Having accommodated the 44 petitioners and others amongst the 85 allottees, the authorities are at liberty to accommodate the 209 encroachers or others in accordance with law. With the observations above, the writ petition is disposed of. 7. Mr. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a dispute relating to the title of the land in question was raised before this Court in CWJC No. 6192 of 2013 when this Court directed that the dispute between the functionaries of the State Government i.e. Zila Parishad and Nagar Panchayat can be resolved by the government in the light of the litigation policy of the government. It is submitted that unless and until the title over the land is decided in favour of the Respondent ZP it was wholly unjustified on the part of the respondent ZP in proceeding against the petitioners for their eviction. It is next contended that the kind of dispute raised in this application should not have been decided in summary manner as has been done in the present case. The respondent considered the case of the petitioner with pre conceived notion that they were encroachers. 8. Mr. It is next contended that the kind of dispute raised in this application should not have been decided in summary manner as has been done in the present case. The respondent considered the case of the petitioner with pre conceived notion that they were encroachers. 8. Mr. Narayan, per contra, submitted that the petitioners having accepted the title of the ZP on the land in question cannot take refuge under any such order particularly when the writ petitioners herein are not the petitioners in the said writ petition. Even otherwise also the dispute between the Nagar Panchayat and the ZP, Chapra over the apportionment of Sairat has already been resolved by the District Magistrate. The petitioners, in particular, in the light of the pleadings on record cannot raise any such dispute before this Court as they have founded their claims on the premise that they were allowed to continue on the land by grant of rent receipts by the officials of the Respondent ZP. 9. Counsel for the private respondents drawing attention of the Court to the relevant pleadings in the counter affidavit submits that the respondents were allotted part of the subject land after its development but were not given possession thereof since the same was unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioners. Even after deposit of the bid amount for such settlement when they were not given possession of the shops constructed thereon by the respondent ZP they moved this Court in CWJC No. 307 of 2012 which was disposed of in the manner noticed above. It is next argued that the respondent ZP have proceeded in the matter in a fair manner which shall be evident from the fact that before evicting the petitioners they published a notice inviting application from all intending persons like the petitioners to apply for allotment of the shops to be constructed after developing the land in question in order to improve/promote the earnings of the respondent ZP. One of the conditions in the notice was that all those who were allowed to continue on the land against payment of rent for certain number of years shall be given preference in the allotment of the shops to be constructed thereon. The petitioners for the reasons known to them did not apply and use the opportunity whereas some of the private respondents herein applied and were selected in the bid and deposited the amount. The petitioners for the reasons known to them did not apply and use the opportunity whereas some of the private respondents herein applied and were selected in the bid and deposited the amount. The possession of the shops has been hitherto denied to them in view of pendency of the present proceeding before this Court. 10. On perusal of the order dated 15.01.2013 it appears that this Court having appreciated the submissions/counter submission made by the parties found that before taking any such action the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the respondent ZP. This was also deemed necessary in view of the factual disputes involved in the matter. This Court, thus, permitted the petitioners to appear and raise their claims before the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent ZP with a view to ensure that the rules of natural justice are complied with. The petitioner appeared before the respondent Chief Executive Officer and submitted all documents for consideration. On a consideration of the submissions of both the parties and in the light of the document placed before the Chief Executive Officer it was found that the petitioners were never inducted on the subject land by grant of any leas deed or settlement either on year-to-year basis or for a specified period of time. Some officers of the respondent ZP had received some rent from the petitioners and granted receipt thereof. Even the receipt of the rent from these petitioner was discontinued since preceding few years. The petitioners were, therefore, held to be the persons in unauthorized occupation of the land of the ZP which was urgently required for improvement/development to enhance the revenue of the respondent ZP. 11. Taking into account the aforesaid fact this Court is satisfied that in passing the impugned notice directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment from the subject land the respondent ZP has not adopted a procedure not sanctioned by law. The action taken against them, therefore, cannot be faulted. 12. Mr. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that petitioner having continued on the subject land for a pretty long time should be given preference in the matter of allotment of the shops after its development and beatification. 13. Mr. Narayan learned counsel for the respondent ZP on the other hand submits that the petitioners were granted the said opportunity but they failed to utilize the opportunity. 13. Mr. Narayan learned counsel for the respondent ZP on the other hand submits that the petitioners were granted the said opportunity but they failed to utilize the opportunity. The proposed shops after putting up public notice and inviting applications have been allotted in favour of some of the private respondents. However, if further shops are constructed the petitioner would be granted some weightage in allotment thereof. 14. Recording the aforesaid stand of the respondent ZP, the writ application is dismissed. No costs.