ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.04.2007 passed in R.M.A No. 11 of 2006-07 whereby the Commissioner, S.P. Division, Dumka (respondent no.2) upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (respondent no. 3) passed in R.M.A No. 32 of 2003-04 confirming the order of the S.D.O, Dumka (respondent no.4) passed in E.E. No. 114 of 1998-99 directing removal of encroachment from plot no. 1913 of Mouza - Dumka (T) No.7. 3. The factual background of the case as stated by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in the year 1932-33 his father late Mukund Mahato @ Yadav being landless had constructed a pucca dwelling house upon a plot being Plot No. 1913 of J.B No. 28 of Mouza - Dumka Town No. 7, P.S -Dumka having area of 1 katha 10 Dhur (hereinafter called the said land), which stands recorded as Bakast Malik during the Gantzer settlement. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner approached the then landlord for the settlement of the said land in his favour and accordingly the landlord settled the said land by way of Patta in the year 1932-33. It is claimed by the petitioner that since then the father of the petitioner came in physical possession of the said land. In the year 1968, the Circle Officer, Dumka filed a land encroachment case under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to be as “BPLE Act, 1956”) and forwarded the same to the L.R.D.C, Dumka, who further forwarded the matter to the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 03.07.1970 to take necessary action against the petitioner in accordance with the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. Thereafter the respondent no.4 passed an order dated 16.03.1971 of eviction against the father of the petitioner from the said land. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner filed an appeal being Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 117 of 1971-72 before the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.-3). Finally, the appeal of the father of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.1973 but in revision being R.M.R No. 28 of 1973, the Commissioner, S.P. Division, Dumka (respondent no.-2) set aside the order of the respondent no. 3 and remanded the matter to respondent no. Misc. Appeal No. 117 of 1971-72 before the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.-3). Finally, the appeal of the father of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.1973 but in revision being R.M.R No. 28 of 1973, the Commissioner, S.P. Division, Dumka (respondent no.-2) set aside the order of the respondent no. 3 and remanded the matter to respondent no. 3 directing that a land encroachment proceeding may be initiated against the petitioner under the Bihar Public Land Enforcement (Revised) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as “BPLE Act, 1972”). In the meantime, the respondent no. 5 filed a petition before the Circle Officer, Dumka for enquiry of the matter whereupon the Circle Officer, Dumka directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment vide notice dated 31.05.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner moved against the notice dated 31.05.1999 before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 5428 of 1999, which was allowed vide order dated 17.09.1999 directing the respondent authorities that the petitioner can be evicted only on the basis of an order passed by a competent authority in a proceeding duly instituted in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the respondent no. 5 filed a case under Section 3 of BPLE Act, 1972 being E.E Case No. 114 of 98-99 before the respondent no. 4, who vide order dated 11.08.2003 directed the petitioner to vacate the said land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 3 being R.M Appeal No. 32 of 2003 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2006. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 5 filed a writ petition being W.P.C No.2276 of 2003, which was dismissed on 09.05.2003 being not maintainable. The petitioner, thereafter, filed second appeal being R.M.A No. 11 of 2006-07 before the respondent no. 2, which was also rejected by holding that the said land is a public land, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that no private person has locus to get a proceeding initiated under the BPLE Act, 1972. It is further submitted that the learned courts below overlooked the fact that the land is recorded in the Gantzer Settlement as “Bakast Malik” and thus the same cannot be said to be public land. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that no private person has locus to get a proceeding initiated under the BPLE Act, 1972. It is further submitted that the learned courts below overlooked the fact that the land is recorded in the Gantzer Settlement as “Bakast Malik” and thus the same cannot be said to be public land. It is alo submitted that, the petitioner and his predecessor in interest have been in continuous possession over the said land since 1932 and as such they acquired title by adverse possession having completed 12 years continuous possession prior to November, 1949 i.e prior to the commencement of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. It is also submitted that the complicated question of right and title of the land cannot be decided in a summary proceeding, particularly by way of land encroachment proceeding. In the present case, the petitioner and his father have been in possession of the land by constructing a dwelling house for more than 70 years, it cannot be removed by proceeding under the BPLE Act, 1972. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel puts reliance on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1992(2) PLJR 854 . Learned senior counsel also submits that the initial burden of proof to establish that the land in question is a public land is upon the government authority. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the land in question is “Government Haat” and at present, the same is under the management of Bazar Samiti and the petitioner has encroached upon the said land. It is further submitted that it is false to say that the said land was settled in favour of the petitioner’s father by way of Patta in the year 1932-33. The learned courts below have rightly passed the orders of eviction of the petitioner by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also on going through the relevant documents. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to show his possession over the said land since 1932-33 as claimed. On the other hand, the reports available on record show that the said land is a “Bazar Kita” under “Bakast Malik Khata” on which Bazar Samiti is situated. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to show his possession over the said land since 1932-33 as claimed. On the other hand, the reports available on record show that the said land is a “Bazar Kita” under “Bakast Malik Khata” on which Bazar Samiti is situated. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the land encroachment case being E.E Case No. 114 of 1998-99 was initiated on the basis of an application of the respondent no. 5 and also pursuant to the direction of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 1100 of 1999. The petitioner was given ample opportunity before the courts below to adduce appropriate evidence in support of his claim over the said land but he failed to produce any documentary evidence i.e. patta of settlement or any rent receipt to substantiate his statement that the said land was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of his father way back in the year 1932-33. On the other hand, from the impugned order, it appears that on spot verification conducted by the respondent no. 4 as well as the Circle Officer, it was found that Bazar Samiti is situated upon the said land which has been encroached by the petitioner. It was further reported by the Circle Officer that the land under Dag No.1913 area 14.05 acres is recorded as Bakast Malik under Bazar Kita-II. The respondent no.4 after taking into consideration all the relevant documents held that the petitioner has encroached upon the said land and as such a direction was issued to him to remove the said encroachment. In appeal and revision also, the respondent nos. 3 and 2 recorded concurrent findings that the land has been illegally encroached by the petitioner and as such affirmed the order of the respondent no.4. 7. So far the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that no private person can have the locus to get a proceeding initiated under the BPLE Act, 1972, the same is unfounded in view of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the BPLE Act, 1972. 7. So far the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that no private person can have the locus to get a proceeding initiated under the BPLE Act, 1972, the same is unfounded in view of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the BPLE Act, 1972. It is apparently clear from perusal of Section 3 of the BPLE Act, 1972 that the expression “any person” and “any source” are not limited to such persons who have a legal or the official duty to report about the encroachment to the authorized officer under the Act but it also includes private citizens or organizations who may or may not be affected by the encroachment of public land in question. Thus, there appears to be no bar against the initiation of proceeding under the BPLE Act, 1972 on the application of any private person. 8. The other submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the land has been recorded as “Bakasht Malik”, the same cannot be said to be public land, is also not acceptable in view of the detailed discussion made by the respondent no.2 in the impugned order dated 10.04.2007 wherein it has been discussed that from the spot enquiry, it was found that upon the said land, Bazar Samiti is situated. Merely because of the fact that the said land was recorded as “Bakast Malik” does not entitle the petitioner to take possession of the land without any right conferred upon him through any process of law. 9. It is a settled law that any complicated question involving claim of right and title over the land by a person vis-à-vis the claim of the government cannot be decided in summary proceeding, particularly by way of land encroachment proceeding, however in the present case, the petitioner has failed to show a single chit of paper regarding his right/title over the land in question in support of his statement. Thus, in the facts situation of the present case, the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Rekha Singh and others (supra) is not applicable. Moreover, the respondent no.2 in the impugned order dated 10.04.2007 has also dealt with the said issue and has come to a finding that the land in question is reported to be “Bazar Kita-II under “Bakasht Malik Khata” on which Bazar Samiti is situated and a “Haat” is held. Moreover, the respondent no.2 in the impugned order dated 10.04.2007 has also dealt with the said issue and has come to a finding that the land in question is reported to be “Bazar Kita-II under “Bakasht Malik Khata” on which Bazar Samiti is situated and a “Haat” is held. Thus, in absence of any admissible rebuttal by the petitioner, there is no reason to draw any other inference than that the nature of the land is of a public land. 10. Though in the number of cases this court has held that if there is complicated question of title involved in the case then in a summary proceeding a person who is said to be in unauthorized occupation cannot be evicted but in the present case the petitioner has not come forward with a single document showing his valid and genuine claim, and therefore in my view, the petitioner, even prima facie, failed to establish his rightful possession over the land in question. 11. Under the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations.