JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding the visual/audio connectivity. 2. The instant intra-Court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1797 of 2015 whereby and whereunder by disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Circle Officer, Nirsa by filing a representation and enclosing a certified copy of the order dated 06.06.2008 said to have been passed in Case No. 2971 of 2005 under Section 87 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and certified copy of any other document as the petitioner may find fit, in order to satisfy the said authority about his claim over the property mentioned in impugned letter dated 06.04.2015, with a direction upon the Circle Officer, Nirsa to pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation of the writ petitioner and if it is found that the claim of the writ petitioner is genuine and as per law, the Circle Officer shall withdraw the impugned letter dated 06.04.2015 immediately. 3. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- The writ petitioner/appellant is claiming the ownership and raiyati possession over the land situated at Mouza Ramkanali, Mouza No. 134, Khata No. 118, Plot No. 2697, measuring an area of 6.51 acres out of 13.60 acres as the said land in question has been settled by the then landlord namely Sriyukt Babu Dhirendra Nath Chandra in favour of father of the writ petitioner/appellant, namely Amaulya Kewat in the year 1941 through Sada Hukumnama. The father of the writ petitioner/appellant had started making payments of rent to the then landlord and in lieu thereof rent receipts have also been issued in favour of father of the writ petitioner/appellant and raiyati of the appellant’s father over the land in question has been accepted by the then landlord. After vesting of the State in the year 1950 under Bihar Land Reforms Act, under Section 5, 6 and 7 return was submitted and the father of the appellant i.e. Late Amaulya Kewat, was entered as a raiyat on payment of compensation to the then landlord through Compensation Case No.5457 of 55-56. After vesting of the State in the year 1950 under Bihar Land Reforms Act, under Section 5, 6 and 7 return was submitted and the father of the appellant i.e. Late Amaulya Kewat, was entered as a raiyat on payment of compensation to the then landlord through Compensation Case No.5457 of 55-56. The aforesaid property has been devolved upon the appellant and three more brothers after the demise of their father and since then the appellant along with other brothers are having peaceful possession over the said property. The appellant and his brothers filed a case bearing Suit No.2971 of 2005 under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act wherein entire documents were filed with regard to the ownership over the property in question and after hearing the parties, the court of Revenue Officer, Dhanbad passed order on 06.06.2008 in favour of the appellant and his brothers declaring their title and possession over the said property. The landed property situated at Mouza Ramkanali, Mouza No. 134, Khata No. 118, Plot No. 2697, measuring an area of 6.51 acres out of 13.60 acres over which also the appellant is having peaceful possession since last more than 50 years by virtue of holding title over the land in question by way of Hukumnama granted by the then landlord in favour of his late father sometime in the year 1941 and since then the appellant is in possession over the said land. It is the case of the writ petitioner/appellant that in the Rent Fixation Case No.01/2013-14 no order has been passed by the authority concerned and on the other hand, the Respondent No.5 has issued a notice against the appellant vide Memo No. 980 dated 04.10.2013 alleging therein about illegal encroachment over the land and therefore, called upon to submit the documents relating to the ownership of the land in question. In compliance to the said notice, the appellant has filed his explanation on 29.10.2013 along with the relevant documents as also narrating the entire facts about the possession over the land in question since the year 1941 as also apprised the authority about the order passed by the competent authority under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act but without considering all these documents, the Respondent No.5 has issued a communication on 06.04.2015 addressing to the Officer-in-Charge, Nirsa Police Station for removal of encroachment over the land in question pertaining to Mouza Ramkanali, Mouza No. 134, Khata No. 118, Plot No. 2697, measuring an area of 1360 decimals, against which writ petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before the writ court, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents inter alia stating therein about the encroachment over the land in question which warranted the competent authority to issue notice for removal of encroachment and prior to that, an opportunity has been granted to put forth the relevant documents in support of the ownership of the land in question and in view thereof, Circle Officer, Nirsa has made a communication to the Officer-in-charge, Nirsa for removal of the encroachment and as such, there if no infirmity in the aforesaid notice. However, learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, has already granted liberty to the writ petitioner to put forth all the relevant documents before the Circle Officer for passing an appropriate order and if it is found after perusing the relevant documents, the notice as issued on 06.04.2015, has been directed to be recalled. 4. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the writ petitioner/appellant inter alia on the ground that there is no encroachment over the land in question and further, proceeding as required to be initiated under the provisions of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has not been initiated and as such, before coming to the conclusion about encroachment over the land in question, the Circle Officer has come to a finding about encroachment and directed the concerned police station to get the land free from encroachment, hence, the authority, without resorting to the provisions of Act, has issued the aforesaid notice which is highly illegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondent authority. Further ground has been agitated that the writ petitioner/appellant has not been provided an opportunity and even though the documents have been submitted, no decision has been taken by the authority as required to be taken under Section 6 of the Act. It has further been submitted that the issue of encroachment has been agitated by the concerned authority only when a case for fixation of rent has been filed as such there is mala fide on the part of the concerned authority. 5. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-2, appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand, has refuted the aforesaid grounds of assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the concerned authority and admittedly, the writ petitioner/appellant is in encroachment over a part of the land over which he is claiming his title which is just adjacent to the police station and after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Circle Officer has exercised his jurisdiction and issued notice to the writ petitioner/appellant to put forth his defence supported by relevant documents and thereafter the Circle Officer has directed the concerned police station to remove the encroachment over the land in question. However, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that no decision has been taken by the concerned Circle Officer, has granted liberty to the writ petitioner/appellant to make a representation before the Circle Officer along with relevant documents for its consideration and in course thereof, if the Circle Officer comes to the conclusion that there is no encroachment, the impugned notice shall be recalled, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since the writ petitioner/appellant is not going to be prejudiced in any way in view of the liberty having been granted by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the impugned order may not be interfered with. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In order to consider as to whether any order has been passed by the competent authority in exercise of power conferred under various provisions of the Act, called for the records of Encroachment Suit No. 1/2013-14 vide order dated 09.07.2020 and in view thereof, records of Encroachment Suit No. 1/2013-14 has been made available which is on paper book of the instant appeal. This Court, before going into the records of Encroachment Suit No. 1/2013-14, deems it fit and proper to refer various provisions of the Act wherein it would be evident from provision of Section 3 which stipulates about initiation of a proceeding which shall be initiated 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 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; (a) Why he should not be restrained from making such encroachment by issue of injunctions; or (b) Why such encroachment should not be removed; (2) Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) the Collector shall have power to issue temporary injunction at any stage to restrain such encroachment till the disposal of the proceeding or till further orders or he may pass such orders as he deems proper for preventing such encroachment subject to the condition provided under the proviso. It requires to refer herein that it is not a case of passing interim injunction as would appear from the impugned notice. It is a case of removal of encroachment by issuing direction by the Circle Officer, Nirsa to the Officer-in-Charge, Nirsa Police Staion and as such, the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 3 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since it is a case of removal of encroachment, as such, a notice is required to be issued under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act. It would further be relevant to refer the provision of Section 4 which stipulates about providing an opportunity to the person on whom notice is served under Section 3 or any person interested in the encroachment may appear before the Collector and raise any defence which he could have raised if he was a defendant in a properly framed suit for the removal of encroachment. Section 5 stipulates about providing an opportunity of hearing and takes such other evidence as may be adduced in their behalf, in case of non-appearance of the notice, the matter shall be heard ex-parte. Thereafter, final order is required to be passed under the provision of Section 6 of the Act and when an order has been passed under Section 6(1) of the Act and the same is not complied with, such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year or with fine up to Rs.25,000/- or with both. It is, thus, evident that the Act is a self-content Act providing therein the provision for coming to the conclusion about encroachment over the public land by issuing a notice upon the encroachment as also for the purpose of providing an opportunity of hearing in defence and thereafter an opportunity of hearing is required to be provided and only then a final order is to be passed by the Collector. Thereafter only the Collector may issue notice for removal of encroachment by taking coercive measure. 7. We have gone across the original record of Encroachment Suit No. 1/2013-14 wherefrom we have found that there is reference of order passed on 14.08.2013 passed by the Circle Officer, Nirsa who happens to be the Collector within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act and found therefrom that by making a reference about encroachment over the land in question a notice has been issued upon the encroacher (writ petitioner/appellant herein) to put forth his defence and thereafter the matter was posted on 29.08.2013. We found from the record that there is no order passed on 29.08.2013 and the aforesaid fact has also been admitted by Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General and he has fairly submitted that there is no order on 29.08.2013. We are not hesitant in coming to the conclusion that although the provision of Section 3(1) of the Act has been resorted to. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General and he has fairly submitted that there is no order on 29.08.2013. We are not hesitant in coming to the conclusion that although the provision of Section 3(1) of the Act has been resorted to. In terms thereof, reply/explanation has been filed along with relevant documents by the writ petitioner/appellant as required under Section 4 of the Act but there was no compliance of the provision of Section 5 which provides to grant an opportunity of hearing to the notice as also there is no conclusive decision about encroachment which is required to be passed under Section 6 of the Act. In view of this conclusive finding, we have gone through the notice as contained in Memo No.980 dated 04.10.2013, as annexed as Annexure-5 to the paper book of this memo of appeal, issued by the Circle Officer, Nirsa informing the writ petitioner/appellant about the alleged encroachment over the land in question. It requires to refer herein that we have already reached to the conclusion by going across the relevant original record of Encroachment Suit No.1/2013-14 wherein notice under Section 3(1) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2013 and the matter was posted on 29.08.2013 but no final decision has been taken and again on 04.10.2013 a notice was issued. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Nirsa has issued a direction upon the Officer-in-Charge of the Nirsa Police Station directing him to injunct the writ petitioner/appellant in making construction over the encroached land and communicate to the Circle Officer, Nirsa. It is thus evident that on 06.04.2015 the Circle Officer, Nirsa in the capacity of Collector, defined under the Act, has exercised the power conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act by passing an order of temporary injunction but the question is when the proceeding has already been initiated being Encroachment Suit No.1/2013-14 in which notice was issued on 14.08.2013 asking the writ petitioner/appellant to submit his reply along with documents and the matter was posted on 29.08.2013 why no decision was taken and again by way of separate proceeding the Circle Officer has issued notice on 14.10.2013 and thereafter an order of temporary injunction was passed on 06.04.2015, therefore, it is evident that no final decision has been taken by the authority concerned even though the proceeding has been initiated way back in the year 2013-14 by way of Encroachment Suit No.1/2013-14. 8. In view of the aforesaid admitted factual aspect, this Court is of the considered view that, since a regular proceeding under the Act has already been initiated, being Encroachment Suit No. 1/2013-14, the competent authority ought to have passed an appropriate order either in exercise of power conferred under Section 3(2) of the Act or under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act but instead of doing so, the Circle Officer has again issued notice on 14.10.2013 as also a direction upon the Officer-in-Charge, Nirsa dated 06.04.2015 by passing temporary injunction about construction over the alleged encroached land. In view of the aforesaid fact, there cannot be two parallel proceedings since one proceeding being Encroachment Suit No.1/2013-14 is still lying pending, therefore, notice dated 04.10.2013 as contained in Annexure-5 and the instruction dated 06.04.2015 as contained in Annexure-7 ought not to have been issued separately and independent to the aforesaid proceeding. This letter/notice can only be issued after taking decision under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, these notices are required to be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the instruction dated 06.04.2015 as contained in Annexure-7 is hereby quashed and set aside. So far as notice dated 04.10.2013 as contained in Annexure-5 is concerned, since the same has not been challenged in the writ petition but taking into consideration the fact that there is already a notice issued to the writ petitioner/appellant on 14.08.2013 in Encroachment Case No.1/2013-14, therefore the notice dated 04.10.2013 is held to be redundant. The Circle Officer, Nirsa is directed to revive the proceeding pertaining to Encroachment Suit No.1/2013-14. The writ petitioner/appellant is directed to co-operate with the proceeding and if he so wishes, he may file further reply along with further relevant documents, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The Circle Officer, Nirsa in turn is directed to take appropriate decision by complying the provisions of Act i.e., by providing adequate and sufficient opportunity to the writ petition/appellant before taking such decision which shall be taken within a further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of reply. 10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant has submitted that the writ petitioner/appellant will appear before the Circle Officer, Nirsa within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 10. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant has submitted that the writ petitioner/appellant will appear before the Circle Officer, Nirsa within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is further directed that during pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, status quo over the land in question shall be maintained by the parties. 11. With above modification in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal is disposed of. 12. Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3612 of 2020 filed to bring on record additional document also stands disposed of.