1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notices (Annexure-3 series to the writ petition) issued to the petitioners by the respondent no. 2 – the Circle Officer, Gola, Ramgarh directing them to remove the alleged encroachment within one week, failing which the same would be removed with the assistance of the police force and cost incurred in the same would be realized from them. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in lawful possession of the respective land and have been residing over the same by constructing houses. The land in question were settled by ex-landlord, Ramgarh to one Budhu Ghanshi, who came in peaceful possession thereupon. An encroachment case under the provisions of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1956”) was initiated against said Budhu Ghanshi by the then Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh and vide order dated 03.09.1965 passed in L.E. Case No. 110 of 1965-66, while observing that Budhu Ghanshi was a privileged person, the matter was remanded to the Circle Officer, Gola to personally make a spot verification to see as to whether the said piece of land could be settled in his favour without causing any loss to the Government. Thereafter, several land encroachment cases being B.P.L.E. Case Nos. 115 of 1997-98, 117 of 1997-98, 111 of 1997-98, 118 of 1997-98, 113 of 197-98 and 114 of 1997-98 were initiated against the ancestors of the petitioners namely, Ganesh Prasad and others. The respondent no. 2 – the Circle Officer, Gola vide order dated 05.06.1998, directed the alleged land encroachers to remove the encroachment from the land in question and being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners’ ancestors filed Land Encroachment Appeal Nos. 47 to 52 of 1998 respectively before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, the said appellate authority vide order dated 24.07.2001 set-aside the order of the respondent no. 2 and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, who vide order dated 22.03.2002 passed in Land Encroachment Appeal Case No. 01 of 2002 held that the ancestors of the petitioners were in peaceful possession over the land in question prior to the year 1960-61 itself and hence, the question of initiation of land encroachment proceeding would not arise. Accordingly, the said proceeding was dropped. Accordingly, the said proceeding was dropped. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once Land Encroachment Appeal Case No. 01 of 2002 was dropped by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh vide order dated 22.03.2002, the same attained finality having binding effect for the parties. However, after gap of more than 18 years, the respondent no. 2 has again issued notices (Annexure 3 series to the writ petition) to the petitioners directing them to remove the alleged encroachment from the respective land, which is highly arbitrary and impermissible in law. It is also submitted that though the impugned notices indicate that the same have been issued under Section 3 of the Act, 1956, yet vide said notices, the petitioners have been directed to remove the alleged encroachment within one week, failing which the same shall be removed with the assistance of the police force. 3. Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, AC to AAG-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that since the land in question occupied by the petitioners are public land, they have rightly been directed to vacate the same vide impugned notices issued by the respondent no. 2. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that earlier while entertaining a similar writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 218 of 2021, this Court has disposed of the same vide order dated 03.02.2021 directing the petitioners of the said writ petition to appear before the respondent no. 2 in the concerned land encroachment cases within a fixed period to enable them to file respective show cause affidavits in their defence and the respondent no. 2, in turn, has been directed to take appropriate informed decision, as mandated under Section 6 of the Act, 1956. 5. On perusal of the impugned notices (Annexure 3 series to the writ petition), it does appear that the respondent no. 2 has though issued the same under Section 3 of the Act, 1956, yet has straightway directed the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment from the land in question, which is not permissible in law. The respondent no. 2 is under statutory obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1956. 6. Hence, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent no. The respondent no. 2 is under statutory obligation to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1956. 6. Hence, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent no. 2 by 11.08.2021 and to file their respective show cause reply in defence. On filing of such reply, the respondent no. 2 after considering of the same and on making due enquiry, if so required, shall take an informed decision, as mandated under Section 6 of the Act, 1956. 7. Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no. 2, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned notices (Annexure 3 series to the writ petition). 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid direction.