JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.09.2021 passed by the respondent No. 5 in Encroachment Case No. 05/2020- 21 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) holding inter-alia that the petitioner is an encroacher of the land appertaining to Plot No. 466 (Part), Khata No. 67, Mouza-Chaupa, Thana No. 789, P.S. Mohanpur, District-Deoghar, measuring an area of 4.92 Acres and has directed him to remove the alleged encroachment within ten days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1707/2021 before this Court challenging the notice dated 05.12.2020 issued by the respondent No. 5 under Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1956’) informing inter-alia that the petitioner was making construction over the said land and was accordingly called upon by the said respondent to appear in his office with relevant documents to explain as to why appropriate action should not be taken against him under the provisions of the Act, 1956. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2021 directing the respondent No. 5 to consider the petitioner’s written statement/reply submitted pursuant to the notice dated 05.12.2020 and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 is wholly illegal as none of the points taken by the petitioner in his written statement filed in the said encroachment case has been taken into consideration and the respondent No. 5 has passed the same with a preoccupied mind directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment from the said land within ten days. 4. Mr. Aditya Raman, learned AC to GA-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal against the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 before the respondent No. 3 under Section 11 of the Act, 1956. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. 5. 4. Mr. Aditya Raman, learned AC to GA-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal against the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 before the respondent No. 3 under Section 11 of the Act, 1956. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal before the respondent No. 3 under Section 11 of the Act, 1956 against the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 passed by the respondent No. 5, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. 6. However, if the petitioner files an appeal against the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 before the respondent No. 3 by 23.11.2021 along with an application seeking interim relief, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant thereto. The said interim order shall remain in force till the respondent No. 3 takes up the appeal preferred by the petitioner for the first time. 7. It goes without saying that the respondent No. 3 shall consider the petitioner’s application seeking interim relief (if so filed) in the appeal on the very first date the same is taken up by the said appellate Court.