Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners laid a challenge to the notices contained at Annexure-7 Series issued by respondent no.4, District Engineer, District Board, Deoghar dated 24th June, 2004 bearing Memo Nos. 67, 68, 70, 72 and 74 in respect of individual petitioners directing them to vacate the shop constructed over Plot no. 88, Thana no. 119, Mouza-Jasidih, District-Deoghar within three days of the notice. They also assailed the notice dated 3rd August, 2004 (Annexure8) issued by respondent no. 6, Circle Officer, Deoghar directing them to produce documents in their support, failing which, the encroachment over the piece of land would be removed at their own cost. Petitioners assailed the impugned orders on the grounds that they cannot be evicted forcefully without taking recourse of law. They also set up a case that they are tenants of Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust to whom they have been making payment of rent as per Annexure-3 Series and Annexure13 to rejoinder. According to them, they are tenants of the shop situated at Plot no. 88, Thana no. 119, Mouza-2. Jasidih, District-Deoghar, which is the trust property of Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust. They have been paying rent to the trust through its receiver appointed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Suit no. 70/1966 consequent Appeal no. 111/1977 vide order dated 20th February, 2003. It is stated that the said suit is still pending and they are lawful tenants of Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust. It is also their case that in the year 1996, the respondent no. 2, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District-Deoghar issued notice under various Memo numbers dated 8th October, 1996 stating that Title Suit filed by Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust against the District Board being Title Suit No. 75/1978 has been dismissed on 3rd May, 1991. Again notices were issued in the year 1998 which are annexed as Annexure4 and 5 Series. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that even those letters show admission of possession of the petitioners over the shops situated at plot no. 88. The only dispute is with regard to title of the plot no. 88. Petitioners have been paying municipal tax for the shops in question over the plot of land falling within the jurisdiction of Notified Area Committee, Jasidih (Deoghar), Annexure-6. 88. The only dispute is with regard to title of the plot no. 88. Petitioners have been paying municipal tax for the shops in question over the plot of land falling within the jurisdiction of Notified Area Committee, Jasidih (Deoghar), Annexure-6. By the impugned notice, these petitioners have been asked to vacate the premises within a period of 3 days, failing which they would be removed in accordance with law. It is submitted that proceedings, if any, for removal of the alleged encroachment or their dispossession has not been initiated in accordance with law. They have been simply given three days time to vacate the shop. Therefore, they have approached this Court. They have been protected by the interim order dated 4th October, 2004 passed earlier. 4. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit through Accounts Officer, Zila Parishad, Deoghar, who has been authorized by respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well. It is their case that Plot nos. 87 and 88 of Mouza-Jasidih Bazar appertaining to Jamabandi no. 72 are recorded in the name of District Committee. In Register-II as well, the name of “Zila Parishad” is recorded. Therefore, Plot no. 88 is not the trust property of Shri Yugal 3. Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust as alleged. Annexure-A is the certified copy of the Khatiyan annexed in support thereof showing District Committee as Raiyyat. The nature of land as “Sahan”. According to them, since the District Board/Zila Parisad is not a party in Suit no. 70 of 1966 or Appeal no. 111/1977 said to be prosecuted before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, they have nothing to comment on such assertion. Names of four persons, namely, Ganesh Dubey, Fanindra Nath Dubey, Gopi Gopal Mahuri and Kartick Mali has been mentioned as tenants of Zila Parishad, Deoghar. It is further stated that there is no justification on the part of the shopkeepers named at para7 to pay rent to Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust. These persons, namely, Madan Mahuri, Mantu Ram Mahuri, Ramsaran Singh, Radheyshyam Dubey, Babulal Ram, Sahadeb Mahto and Lachhmi Devi cannot claim to be the tenants of District Committee. They are simply trespassers and are in illegal occupation of the premises. It is further stated that the District Board constructed five shop rooms over Plot no. 87, with due sanction of map by Notified Area Committee, Jasidih. They are simply trespassers and are in illegal occupation of the premises. It is further stated that the District Board constructed five shop rooms over Plot no. 87, with due sanction of map by Notified Area Committee, Jasidih. Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust obtained an injunction order in respect of Plot no. 87 by filing Title Suit no. 75 of 1978. The said injunction order was vacated by the then Sub-Judge, Deoghar against which the Surajmal Ruia Trust filed a Civil Appeal before the District Judge, Dumka, where Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust lost the case. In the meantime, five shop rooms were completed. Civil Appeal was filed thereafter before Hon'ble Patna High Court by M/s. Surajmal Ruia Trust wherein a direction was issued to dispose of the main suit within six months. The said Title Suit was dismissed by Sub-Jude III vide order dated 3rd May, 1991 for non-prosecution. In such circumstances, the District Board is fully justified to issue notice to the tenants to pay rent. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that there cannot be any dispute in relation to Title of plot no. 88 in view of the aforesaid facts. It is further stated that upon dismissal of the suit no. 75/78 filed by M/s. Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust against Zila Parishad for non-prosecution on 3rd May, 1991 notices issued by Zila Parishad for eviction or removal of encroachment cannot be faulted upon. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition as the petitioners have failed to show any right, title and interest over the plot no. 88 in question. 6. Petitioners have also filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit. At para-5 reference is made to Land Acquisition Case no. 3 of 1926-27 initiated for construction of diversion to Jasidih Railway Station. It is stated that the State Mutually Exchanged Plot no. 87 which belonged to Bhudarmull Ruia with Plot no. 88 (both respectively portion of old Plot no. 2 and plot no. 1), which belonged to the State. On the basis of the order passed in the aforesaid L.A Case, the land was mutually exchanged. However, the State is not providing the certified copy of the entire proceedings of L.A Case No. 3 of 1926-27. The relevant documents are not being supplied under Right to Information Act. 2 and plot no. 1), which belonged to the State. On the basis of the order passed in the aforesaid L.A Case, the land was mutually exchanged. However, the State is not providing the certified copy of the entire proceedings of L.A Case No. 3 of 1926-27. The relevant documents are not being supplied under Right to Information Act. Other averments have also been made on the part of the petitioners to contend that on exchange of plot no. 88 with 87, Ruias took possession of Plot no. 88 while State took possession of plot no. 87. 7. On the basis of these contentions, counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the challenge to the impugned notices and submitted that the respondents do not have any justification to seek eviction of these petitioners. 8. Interlocutory applications have been filed seeking substitution of petitioner nos. 5 and 6 stating that they have died on 6th April, 2005 and 12th December, 2006 respectively. I.A. No. 6602 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking substitution claiming to be the legal heirs. Through I.A No. 6603 of 2016 prayer has been made for impleadment of M/s. Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust through its receiver as a party respondent in the instant case. 9. Prayer for substitution of petitioner nos. 5 and 6 are allowed in the interest of justice as the respondent also do not object to the same. Let substitution be carried out in the array of petitioners by counsel for the petitioners during the course of the day in red ink. 10. This Court, however, is not satisfied that impleadment, as prayed for, through I.A. No. 6603 of 2016 deserves to be allowed at this stage. It is accordingly rejected. 11. I have considered the submission of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. Apart from the document of receipt enclosed at Annexure-3 Series and 13 Series by the petitioners issued by the Trust, there are no documents or instrument to substantiate the claim of any right, title or interest on the part of the petitioners over the shop in question situated at Plot no. 88, Thana no. 119, Mouza-Jasidih, District-Deoghar. The respondent Zila Parishad and District Authorities, Deoghar through their notices as Annexure-4 Series issued in the name of persons occupying shops on Plot no. 88 apprised them of dismissal of Title Suit no. 88, Thana no. 119, Mouza-Jasidih, District-Deoghar. The respondent Zila Parishad and District Authorities, Deoghar through their notices as Annexure-4 Series issued in the name of persons occupying shops on Plot no. 88 apprised them of dismissal of Title Suit no. 75 of 78 instituted by M/s. Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust, also reflected in the counter affidavit of respondents. They were directed to make payment of the arrears of rent to Zila Parishad, failing which steps would be taken for removal of their unauthorized occupation. There are no receipts of rent being paid to the Zila Parishad on the part of the petitioners. Respondents in their counter affidavit have also annexed certified copy of Khatiyan in respect of plot nos. 87 and 88 recorded in the name of District Committee and shown as Sahan which the petitioners have not been able to controvert, in order to establish the right, title and interest of the petitioners or their alleged landlords namely M/s. Shri Yugal Kishore Surajmal Ruia Trust. Respondent-District Board in such circumstances, had issued the impugned notices at Annexure-7 directing the petitioners to remove their shops within a period of 3 days failing which steps would be taken in accordance with law for their removal. Evidently, the said Trust has also not prosecuted the matter raised through Title Suit no. 75 of 1978 in respect of construction carried by Zila Parishad over the plot no. 87 in question. In those circumstances, if the District Board/Zila Parisad, Deoghar has issued the impugned notices upon the petitioners to vacate the premises within a period of 3 days, failing which, steps would be taken for their eviction in accordance with law, petitioners cannot allege want of jurisdiction, illegality or malafide on the part of District Board to seek interference in the impugned notices by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Respondent-Board has submitted that steps for eviction of the petitioners would obviously be taken in accordance with law. 12. In that event, there is no reason for this Court to quash the impugned notices issued against the petitioners by the respondent District Board/Zila Parishad, Deoghar. Counsel for the Respondent-Board has submitted that steps for eviction of the petitioners would obviously be taken in accordance with law. 12. In that event, there is no reason for this Court to quash the impugned notices issued against the petitioners by the respondent District Board/Zila Parishad, Deoghar. It goes without saying that in any such proceeding initiated for eviction of the petitioners or any other unlawful occupants or for removal of encroachment, the respondents would take steps as per the procedure prescribed in law with due opportunity to the affected parties. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned notice. 14. Interim order dated 4th October, 2004 is vacated. It is however also made clear that any observations made hereinabove would not be treated as comment on the case of either of the parties in any such proceeding initiated for eviction of the petitioners.