ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 22.06.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the Circle Officer, Simdega (respondent no. 5) for initiation of encroachment proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short “the Act, 1956”) with respect to the land pertaining to Khata no. 172, plot no. 03/3131 measuring an area of 0.08 ½ acre situated at Mouza-Simdega, P.O. & P.S. and District-Simdega (hereinafter to be referred as “said land”). 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner namely Janki Sao, on the strength of the lease of the said land executed in the year 1944, came in possession of the same and constructed house and other structures over the same. An encroachment case being No. 01 of 1962-63 was initiated against the father of the petitioner with respect to the said land wherein the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (in short “D.C.L.R.”) Simdega confirmed the possession of the petitioner’s father for more than 12 years and observed that the fair rent of the said land should be fixed. Subsequently, the D.C.L.R. Simdega, vide order dated 17.03.1978 directed for fixation of rent in his favour and accordingly the rent schedule was prepared in the name of the petitioner’s father vide Case No. 08 of 1977-78. The petitioner’s father remained in possession over the said land so long he was alive and after his death, the petitioner along with his brother inherited the same and has been continuing in possession thereof. Irrespective of the said fact, a notice was issued by the respondent no. 5 on 09.06.2016 directing the petitioner to produce relevant documents relating to the said land treating the same to an encroachment. The petitioner submitted his show-cause reply, however another notice was served to the petitioner on 22.06.2016 relating to the alleged encroachment over the said land. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent no. 5 in issuing notices to the petitioner relating to the alleged encroachment over the said land is arbitrary, vindictive and the same is against the mandate of law. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent no. 5 in issuing notices to the petitioner relating to the alleged encroachment over the said land is arbitrary, vindictive and the same is against the mandate of law. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner namely Janki Sao was a lessee with respect to the said land and the rent with respect to the same was fixed by the court of D.C.L.R. Simdega in the name of the petitioner’s father vide case no. 08 of 1977-78 and accordingly the rent schedule was prepared and therefore the action of the respondent no. 5 in initiation of the proceeding under the provisions of the Act, 1956 itself indicates mala-fide and colourable exercise of power. The respondent no. 5 has exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing notice for initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1956. The proceeding under the Act, 1956 was already initiated earlier in the year 1962-63 in which, the D.C.L.R. Simdega, vide order dated 16.03.1963 observed that the rent of the said land should be fixed in favour of the petitioner’s father. Thus the respondent no. 5 has no jurisdiction to re-open the case of encroachment. The petitioner however submitted full-fledged show cause reply pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent no. 5 on 09.06.2016 relating to the alleged encroachment, however no order has been passed. The land in question is not a public land within the meaning of section 2 of the Act, 1956 and thus the respondent no. 5 has no jurisdiction to issue notice to the petitioner for initiation of encroachment proceeding with respect to the said land. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the cancellation of Jamabandi of the said land in the year 2005 as the petitioner had not been served any notice before passing such order. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that although the petitioner has claimed that his father was a lease holder of 0.08 ½ acre of land within Khata No. 172, Plot No. 3/3131 of village Simdega, Dist. Simdega in the year 1944 but he has not filed any lease deed in support of the said claim. It is further submitted that the order dated 17.03.1978 passed by the D.C.L.R. Simdega (respondent no. Simdega in the year 1944 but he has not filed any lease deed in support of the said claim. It is further submitted that the order dated 17.03.1978 passed by the D.C.L.R. Simdega (respondent no. 4) in case no. 08/77-78 has been cancelled in the year 2005 in Jamabandi Case No. 07 of 2003-04. The said land is recorded as “Kaisher-e-Hind” which is the estate of Union of India and the State Government is only the custodian of the Kaisher-e-Hind land. The local authorities or the State Government can neither settle the land to anyone nor mutate the name of illegal occupant. It is further submitted that the Collector can re-open the matter initiating a land encroachment proceeding in the given facts of the case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued for removing encroachment from the said land. On perusal of record, it appears that a land encroachment proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1962-63 for the said land and vide order dated 16.08.1963 the LRDC, Simdega came to the finding that the said land is a public land upon which the petitioner is in possession from before 11.09.1947 i.e. more than 12 years before the commencement of the Act, thus a fair rent can be fixed by the Circle Officer for the use and occupation of the land from the date of the said occupation at the rate payable for the land of similar description and similar advantages in the vicinity. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.03.1978, the D.C.L.R. Simdega fixed the rent of the said land @ Rs. 5/- per year which was paid by the father of the petitioner regularly. 6. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the order dated 17.03.1978 has been cancelled in the year 2005 in Jamabandi Case No. 07 of 2003-04 on the ground that the said land is a public land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has no knowledge about the passing of any such order in the year 2005. The respondents have not pleaded before this Court that before passing the order in the year 2005, any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has no knowledge about the passing of any such order in the year 2005. The respondents have not pleaded before this Court that before passing the order in the year 2005, any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Further, the respondents have also not brought on record the order passed in Jamabandi Case No. 07 of 2003-04 as contended. 7. Moreover, while passing the order dated 16.08.1963, the D.C.L.R. Simdega had already taken into consideration the facts that the said land is a public land, however confirmed the possession of the petitioner’s father observing that he has been in possession of the said land for more than 12 years before the commencement of the Act, 1956. 8. In the case of Smt. Rekha Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1992 (2) PLJR 854 held as under:- “8. It has been well settled by now that the summary remedy for eviction under the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against the persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is "the property of Government." If there is a bona-fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and, on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title.” 9. Since in the present case, the petitioner is in possession of the said land for several decades and the said fact was confirmed by the competent authority of the State and the rent has also been received, there appears to be a bona-fide dispute of title between the petitioner and the respondent-State which cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceeding under the Act, 1956. 10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the notice dated 22.06.2016 issued by the Circle Officer, Simdega (respondent no. 5) is quashed and set aside. However, the respondent-State is at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the competent Civil Court for declaration of its title upon the said land. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.