JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B.S. Lal, Learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Vishal Kishore, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, G.P. VI, counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel appearing for the private-respondent no. 6 and 7. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners for the following reliefs:- (a) For quashing the order dated 14.05.2010 passed in Case No.1/2008-09 by the Anchal Adhikari, Bagodar as contained in Annexure-24 of the writ petition. (b) For quashing the appellate order dated 25.11.2011 passed in File No. 21/2010 by the District Collector, Giridih as contained in Annexure-25 of the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits as follows:- (a) The land in question is in the occupation of the petitioners since 1939 and they are doing business activities on the land in question. The property is recorded as gairmajarua Khas in the record of rights. The ex-landlord had settled the land in favour of the father of the petitioner no.1 and four others as back as in the year 1939 and parcha was also issued. Rent receipt was issued by the ex-landlord and the state of Bihar duly recognized the petitioner as Raiyat and issued rent receipt. (b) A proceeding under Section 3 of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 was initiated against the petitioners and others and at the stage Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 filed a writ petition being W.P.C No.4735 of 2008 challenging the proceeding. (c) The said writ petition being W.P.(C). No. 4735/ 2008 was disposed of vide order dated 8th January, 2010. The counsel for the petitioner referred to Para-2 to 6 of the said order which is quoted herein below for ready reference:- “2. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent-State has stated that under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act, 1956” for the sake of brevity) proceedings have been initiated for the purposes of widening of the road and it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the proceedings will be completed as early as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court and the petitioner should also cooperate with the hearing. It is also fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that till the proceedings under the Act, 1956 are finally decided, the structure, in question, will not be demolished/disturbed. 3. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent nos.6 and 7, has vehemently submitted that the petitioner are the encroachers and they are not the owners of the property, in question, and several misleading statements have been made by the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the proceedings under the Act, 1956 have already been initiated by the state and it has been assured by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the said proceedings will be completed as early as possible and practicable, preferably within ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or their representatives as well as after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties, including respondent nos. 6 and 7 and looking to the assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that meanwhile the structure, in question, will not be demolished/disturbed. I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand and its authorities to hear and decide the proceedings under the Act, 1956, as early as possible and practicable, preferably within ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or to their representatives as well as after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties, including respondent nos. 6 and 7, and I further direct that till the proceedings under the Act, 1956 are completed, the structure, in question, will not be demolished/disturbed by the State of Jharkhand. 5. I also direct the concerned officer of the State of Jharkhand that immediately from today, coloured photographs of all these properties will be taken from all the angles and from all the sides, so as to prevent further construction or demolition and all these coloured photographs as well as Panchanama shall be drawn with the signature of two witnesses and the same will be kept with the high-ranking Officer of the State. 6. 6. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.” (d) After order dated 08.01.2010 passed in W.P.(C). No. 4735/ 2008, the matter was taken up by the authority on 23.02.2010. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 23.02.2010 as contained in Annexure-24 (Proceeding sheet) of the writ petition submits that an order with a direction to conduct the photography of the premises and for that purpose notice were issued to the authorities of the concerned circle. (e) From the perusal of the order dated 23.02.2010 it appears that no next date has been fixed in the matter. (f) However, from the order-sheet, it appears that the next date when the matter was taken up was on 10th March, 2010, when an order was passed that the encroachment is to be removed by 4.4.2010 and for that purpose notice fixing the date as 08.04.2010 was to be issued. (g) The next date was on 08.04.2010, on 08.04.2010 it has been recorded that the notices have been served and pursuant to the service of notice the persons including the petitioners appeared and prayed for 15 days’ time. Time was granted and the next date was fixed on 21.4.2010. (h) The specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioner had filed time petition on 08.04.2010 but no next date was made known to the petitioner and accordingly the petitioners could not appear on 21.4.2010. (i) Accordingly, on 21.04.2010 the petitioners did not appear and from the perusal of the order-sheet it appears that the time petition filed on dated 08.04.2010 was taken and the petitioners were granted for six weeks for filing their show cause and the matter was directed to be posted on 03.05.2010. (j) The petitioners had no knowledge about the date being fixed on 3.5.2010 and accordingly the petitioners could not appear before the authority on 3.5.2010. (k) On 03.05.2010 also the petitioners could not appear as they had no knowledge of order passed on 21.04.2010. However, the authority on 03.05.2010 passed an order granting time by way of last chance till 12.05.2010 and also directed for issuance of notice under the provisions of Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956. (k) On 03.05.2010 also the petitioners could not appear as they had no knowledge of order passed on 21.04.2010. However, the authority on 03.05.2010 passed an order granting time by way of last chance till 12.05.2010 and also directed for issuance of notice under the provisions of Bihar Land Encroachment Act, 1956. (l) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the notice which is mentioned in order dated 03.05.2010 was in fact never issued and accordingly the same was never served upon the petitioners accordingly they did not appear before the authority on 12.05.2010. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioner had no knowledge of the date as 12.5.2010 on which day the proceedings were closed in absence of the petitioners and matter was posted for orders. (m) Thereafter the impugned order dated 14.5.2010 was passed directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment. (n) The counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 14.5.2010 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and against the directions passed by this Hon’ble court in W.P.(C). No. 4735/2008. (o) Counsel for the petitioners submit that against the order dated 14.5.2010, the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 moved before the District Collector, Giridih who dismissed the appeal on 25.11.2011 by holding that the notice in ‘form-1’ was already issued to the petitioner on 13.9.2008 and the same was received. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned District Court, Giridih has not appreciated that the principles of natural justice has not been complied with as the dates of hearing were not known to the appellants and the appellants ultimately could not put forth their case before the Circle Officer, Bagodar. (p) Counsel for the petitioners on the merits of the matter further submits that the petitioners are in rightful possession of the property since long and relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in (1992) 2 PLJR 854 (Patna) to show that if there is bonafide dispute regarding title of the government to any property then the government cannot take unilateral action. Such a dispute must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary course of law. Such a dispute must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary course of law. (q) However, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that it would suffice if the matter is remitted back to the authority for passing fresh order after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to place their case and a date of hearing be fixed by this Hon’ble Court itself. 6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the authorities below and they have annexed the copies of the notices which were served upon the writ petitioners issued on 13.9.2008 under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 in form-I and accordingly no fresh notice as required to be issued as per order dated 03.5.2010. So far as the merits of the case is concerned counsels for the respondents submit that the petitioners are encroachers and the impugned orders have been rightly passed. Counsels for the respondents also submits that the petitioners have already been adjusted and given some other place in market complex for the purposes of rehabilitation but still they are not vacating the premises. Accordingly the writ petition be dismissed. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the Circle Officer, Bagodar as well as the appellate order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the District Collector, Giridih and remand the matter to the Circle Officer, Bagodar for fresh consideration on account of the following facts and reasons:- (a) From the records of the case I find, that there was a specific order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C). No.4735 of 2008 vide dated 08.01.2010 for passing fresh order after hearing the parties. (b) In W.P.(C). No. 4735 of 2008 there were six petitioner as follows:- (i) Badri Prasad Sao @ Badri Sao (ii) Shital Sao (iii) Gopal Sao @ Nand Gopal Sao (iv) Laljee Prasad Sao (v) Narsing Sao @ Narsingh Prasad (vi) Hira Sao (c) The same writ petitioners are here before this court as petitioner no. 1 to 6. So far as the petitioner no. 7 and 8 are concerned they were not party in the W.P.(C). No. 4735 of 2008. (d) It is nobody’s case that petitioner nos. 1 to 6. So far as the petitioner no. 7 and 8 are concerned they were not party in the W.P.(C). No. 4735 of 2008. (d) It is nobody’s case that petitioner nos. 7 & 8 had ever filed any writ petition before this Hon’ble Court challenging the action of the Circle Officer, Bagodar and the initiation of proceeding under Section 3 of Bihar Public Land, Act which was issued as back as in the year 2008. (e) From the order-sheet, I find that a proceeding was further initiated pursuing to the order being W.P.(C) No. 4735 of 2008 which is recorded in order dated 23.2.2010 in compliance of the order dated 08.01.2010 passed in W.P.(C). No. 4735/ 2008. (f) Thereafter, time was granted to the writ petitioner nos. 1 to 6 as well as by the respondent nos. 7 & 8 vide order dated 05.4.2010. (g) Thereafter, on 21.4.2010 in the same proceeding again the time was granted and fixing the next date as 03.5.2010. (h) Thereafter, on 03.5.2010, the so called encroachers which included the petitioners did not appear before the Circle Officer and accordingly the Circle Officer granted last date till 12.5.2010 to file the show cause/ documents and on the same date on 03.5.2010 directed for issuance of fresh notice under Section 3 in form-1. (i) From the order sheet and the records of the case, I find that the notice as mentioned in 03.05.2010 fixing next date as 12.05.2010 was never issued to the petitioners and accordingly the same could not have been served upon the petitioners. Ultimately, on 12.05.2010 the petitioners did not appear before the authorities and order was reserved and final order was passed on 14.05.2010 without hearing the petitioners which resulted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and against the directions issued in W.P.(C). No. 4735/ 2008. In such circumstances the petitioners could not produce their documents and evidences in support of their claim. The petitioner nos. 1 to 6 could not produce their documents in spite of order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C). No. 4735 of 2010 and so far as the petitioner nos. 7 and 8 are concerned they also could not produce the documents as the notice fixing the dates as 12.05.2010 was neither issued nor served upon the petitioners. 1 to 6 could not produce their documents in spite of order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C). No. 4735 of 2010 and so far as the petitioner nos. 7 and 8 are concerned they also could not produce the documents as the notice fixing the dates as 12.05.2010 was neither issued nor served upon the petitioners. (j) The plea of the respondents that the notice in form-I was issued earlier in the year 2008 and no notice was required to be issued pursuant to order dated 03.05.2010 cannot be accepted. Once and order has been passed for issuance of notice as per the ordersheet itself the same ought to have been issued. This is particularly in view of the circumstances that there is nothing on record to show that the dates which were fixed as per the ordersheet were fixed in presence of the petitioners or were made known to the petitioner by asking them to put their endorsement or signature on the order sheet itself to demonstrate that the orders were seen by the petitioners. (k) Thus, this court finds that the petitioners could not file their respective show cause before the Circle Officer for the reasons beyond their control and the impugned order dated 14.05.2010 has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and hence violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. (l) The appellate authority has also failed to consider this aspect of the matter and based his order mainly on the ground that the perusal of lower court file reveals that Form-I was issued on 13/09/2008 and the same was received by the appellants and has not considered the fact that the various dates as fixed by the Circle Officer were not known or communicated to the petitioners and the notice as mentioned in order dated 03.05.2010 fixing the date as 12.05.2010 was neither issued and accordingly nor served upon the petitioners which ultimately resulted in non filing of the respective show cause by the petitioners and passing of impugned order dated 12.05.2010. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the order dated 14.05.2010 passed in Case No.1/2008-09 by the Anchal Adhikari, Bagodar as contained in Annexure-24 of the writ petition as well as the appellate order dated 25.11.2011 passed in File no. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the order dated 14.05.2010 passed in Case No.1/2008-09 by the Anchal Adhikari, Bagodar as contained in Annexure-24 of the writ petition as well as the appellate order dated 25.11.2011 passed in File no. 21/2010 by the District Collector, Giridih as contained in Annexure-25 of the writ petition are hereby set-aside and the petitioners are directed to appear before the authority on 10.03.2018 with their respective show cause and documents in respect of their claim etc. before the Anchal Adhikari, Bagodar. 9. The respondent authority upon filing the show-cause reply by the petitioners on 10.03.2018 shall proceed with the matter hear the parties and take the final decision by speaking order within a period of two weeks thereafter. 10. At this stage, counsel for the respondent submits that this order should be confined only to the writ petitioners of this case and any person who has not challenged the impugned order should not be permitted to take any advantage. 11. Considering the prayer made by the respondents it is needless to say that order is confined only to the writ petitioners who are before this court. 12. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observation and directions.