JUDGNENT Virender Singh, C.J. 1.The appellants-writ petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as 'petitioners') being aggrieved of the notice issued to them under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 ( for short 'Encroachment Act'), wherein they were directed to remove encroachment upon plot no. 215, area Barganda of village -Barganda, Thana No.92, PS-Giridih, District-Giridih, which, according to respondents, is a public land as defined under sub-section(5)of Section 2 of Encroachment Act, knocked at the door of Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(C)No.1264 of 2015, which now stands dismissed vide impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 9th April, 2015, reserving the right of petitioners to approach the appellate authority and produce the entire evidence with respect to their title and lawful possession or possession of their vendors over the land in question, there being specific remedy of filing appeal available to the petitioners under Section 11 of the Encroachment Act. 2. Aggrieved of the said judgment, petitioners have filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal in which Mr. Atanu Banerjee appears for the respondents. Service is thus complete. 3. The instant appeal is at the admission stage and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken it on Board for its final consideration. 4. Mr. Gadodia submits that may be the petitioners had a remedy of knocking at the door of the appellate court in terms of Section 11 of the Encroachment Act but the manner in which the present case has been dealt with by Circle Officer, Giridih, petitioners straightway knocked at the door of Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Gadodia submitted that a glaring defect crept in this case is that before passing an order under clause (c) of sub-section(1) of Section 5 of the Encroachment Act, a notice was issued to petitioners under Section 3 of the Encroachment Act for removal of encroachment on 16th March, 2015, whereas Circle Officer had finally decided the matter on 17.3.2015 only and the petitioners came to know of passing of the order by Circle Officer only when they had received notice on 16th March, 2015 and immediately thereafter they made application for certified copy of the said order and when it was not provided to them for a reasonable good period, they approached the Writ Court. According to Mr. According to Mr. Gadodia, this glaring defect apparent on the record knocks down the case of the respondents and makes the entire proceedings nonest which, in fact, could also be dealt with by the Writ Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Section 226 of Constitution. 5. Mr.Gadodia then submits that petitioners are even ready and willing to approach the appellate court, impugning the order of Circle Officer in terms of Section 11 of the Encroachment Act, but prayer is for some interim relief enabling them to knock at the door of the appellate court within a reasonable period. He submits that even as per notice issued to petitioners under Section 3 of the Encroachment Act, only three days time was granted to them to remove the encroachment, which order was put to hold by the Writ Court as well during pendency of the main lis, but now automatically stands lifted after dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Mr. Atanu Banerjee appearing for respondents strongly opposes the prayer made by Mr. Gadodia vis-a-vis interim relief. 7. Keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, least it may prejudice the case of either side before the appellate authority, we grant two weeks' time to the petitioners-appellants to approach the appellate authority, throwing challenge to the legality and validity of order dated 16.3.2015/17.3.2015 passed by Circle Officer, Giridih. The impugned order, during this period of two weeks shall not be made operational, in default thereof, the interim relief granted to the petitioners shall cease to operate. 8. Needless to say that the appeal shall be decided by the appellate authority expeditiously, preferably within one month, undoubtedly in accordance with law, without being prejudiced to any observation made by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 9. The appeal on hand stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.