ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 5- Circle Officer, Gola (Ramgharh) vide notice of encroachment dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued in Encroachment Case No. 02/2018-19. A further prayer has been made for quashing the notice dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) in the said encroachment case by the respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the construction made over an area of 0.0803 acre out of 1.31 acre in Plot Nos. 302 and 303 under Khata No. 5 of Village-Heramdaga acquired under the Bhairvi Jalasay Yojna. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased piece of land bearing Plot No. 303, Khata No. 5 and Plot No. 300, Khata No. 60, admeasuring 0.07¼ acre situated at Mouza-Heramdaga, Thana No. 22, Thana-Gola, District-Hazaribagh, Khewat No. 1, Touji No. 28, from Smt. Vandana Ambasta, wife of Dr. Ajeet Kumar, resident of Gola, P.O. & P.S.-Gola, District-Ramgarh vide registered sale-deed dated 16.02.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner came in possession of the aforesaid plots of land which were encircled with a pucca boundary wall with an iron gate for entrance. The petitioner got the aforesaid land mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No. 72/03-04 dated 24.06.2003 and accordingly, rent receipt was issued to him by the respondent no. 5 for the year 2003-04 on 14.07.2003. It is further submitted that the petitioner received notice issued under the signature of the respondent no. 5 in Encroachment Case No. 02/2018-19, wherein it was mentioned that the aforesaid land possessed by the petitioner is a public land. The petitioner was given a week’s time for filing of show-cause reply as to why the structure over the said land be not removed. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the provisions of Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1956”) submits that in view of the said provision, the Collector under the Act has to provide at least two weeks’ time from the date of service of the notice to show-cause. However, despite the mandate of law, the respondent no. However, despite the mandate of law, the respondent no. 5 passed the order under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 on 15.05.2018 i.e., only after 12 days of issuance of notice dated 03.05.2018 under Section 3 of the Act, 1956. The said action of the respondent no. 5 is completely contrary to law and, therefore, the notice dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is liable to the set-aside. 3. Mr. J.F. Toppo, the learned SC (L&C), submits that the respondent no. 5, having found that the land in question is a public land, initiated the proceeding by issuing notice dated 03.05.2018 asking the petitioner to submit the show-cause reply. However, since the petitioner did not submit the same, the order dated 15.05.2018 under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 has been passed and thus, the same does not warrant interference by this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. The relevant provision of Section 3 of the Act, 1956 reads as under: 3. Initiation of the proceedings.–(1) If it appears to the Collector from an application made by any person or upon information received from any sources that any person has made or is responsible for the continuance of any encroachment upon any public land, the Collector may cause to be served upon such person a notice in the prescribed form requiring him to appear on a date which shall not be less than two weeks from the date of service of notice to show cause:- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ (2) ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ (3) ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ 5. On perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 1956, it is evidently clear that if it appears to the Collector (the Circle Officer-respondent no. 5 herein), there has been any encroachment upon a public land, he may cause to be served such person a notice in the prescribed form requiring him to appear on the said date which shall not be less than two weeks from the date of service of notice to show-cause. 6. In the present case, the show-cause notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1956 was issued by the respondent no. 5 on 03.05.2018 giving merely one week time to the petitioner to submit his reply to the show-cause. Thereafter, on 15.05.2018, the respondent no. 6. In the present case, the show-cause notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1956 was issued by the respondent no. 5 on 03.05.2018 giving merely one week time to the petitioner to submit his reply to the show-cause. Thereafter, on 15.05.2018, the respondent no. 5 issued the notice under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 directing the petitioner to remove the construction made over the said land. As such, it would appear that the order under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 has been passed by the respondent no. 5 only after 12 days of issuance of notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1956. Thus, the said notice dated 15.05.2018 passed in Encroachment Case No. 02/18-19 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is contrary to the mandate of law and, therefore, the same is quashed and set-aside. However, the respondent no. 5 is at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh observing due process of law. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty to the respondent no. 5. Petition disposed of.