ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 11.10.2018 (Annexure-5 series) issued under Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short “the Act 1956”) to the petitioners by the Circle Officer, Chas-cum-Collector under the Act, 1956 (the respondent no. 3) in Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2018-19 alleging encroachment made by them over different areas of the land appertaining to Khata No. 67, plot no. 69, village-Mamarkudar, Thana No. 92, P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land appertaining to plot no. 69, Khata No. 67, measuring an area of 62 decimals situated in village Mamarkudar, Thana No. 92, P.S. Chas (M), District-Bokaro (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) was given by the landlord-Dharapati Bhattacharya son of late Sumitha Nath Bhattachartya to Smt. Rangi Mahtain wife of late Dhirju Mahto by way of “Jot Patta” executed vide deed no. 3457 dated 07.01.1940 and accordingly the rent was fixed by the landlord. She, thereafter, came in possession of the said land and by constructing a house over part of the same, started living with her family. The rest part of the land was utilized by her as open space and garden as well as for cultivation of vegetables. Late Rangi Mahtain was the great-grandmother/grandmother of the petitioners who being her descendants have been living peacefully over different portion of the land after mutual partition of the same. It is further submitted that after lapse of more than 75 years of settlement of said land in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 by the respondent no. 3 in Encroachment Case No. 03/2014-15. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioners appeared in the said encroachment case and filed their respective replies. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3, vide order dated 16.10.2015, considering the issue of encroachment of public land on merit and also keeping in view the opinion of the government pleader, observed that since the petitioners/their ancestors had been residing over the said land since 1940 on the basis of “Jot Patta” dated 07.01.1940, dispossessing them from the said land on the complaint of a private person namely Rajendra Mahato, would not be in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said encroachment case was dropped. Accordingly, the said encroachment case was dropped. However, surprisingly, after lapse of about 3 years of dropping the aforesaid encroachment case, the respondent no. 3 again issued the impugned notices dated 11.10.2018 to the petitioners under Section 3 of the Act, 1956 alleging encroachment over the same land. It is also submitted that once the land encroachment proceeding was initiated and after considering the issue involved on merit, the respondent no. 3 had dropped the same, issuance of the impugned notices by the said respondent are not only barred by the principles of res-judicata but are also illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has put reliance on the judgments rendered by Patna High Court in the case of Sri Kali Pd. Seal vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1969 (17) BLJR 254 as well as in the case of Mahanth Ramagya Giri vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1991 (2) PLJR 249 : AIR 1992 Pat. 82 . 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, which has been sworn by the respondent no. 3 himself, taking a stand that the present encroachment proceeding i.e. Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2018-19 has been initiated on the basis of enquiry report of Halka Karamchari, Chas wherein it has been stated that the petitioners have encroached the public land which is “Gair Majarua” in nature. The impugned notices dated 11.10.2018 have accordingly been issued to the petitioners calling upon them as to why the encroachment made over the said public land be not removed. It has also been averred in the counter affidavit that the present encroachment proceeding has been initiated on the basis of fresh enquiry report submitted by Halka Karamchari, Chas and hence the same is not barred by the principles of res-judicata. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 3 had earlier initiated Encroachment Case No. 03 of 2014-15 against the petitioners for the same land. The order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the respondent no. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 3 had earlier initiated Encroachment Case No. 03 of 2014-15 against the petitioners for the same land. The order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 in the said encroachment case, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, clearly suggests that the same was initiated on an application made by Rajendra Mahto (who, according to the petitioners, is their relative). While passing the said order, the respondent no. 3 considered the report of Halka Karamchari, Chas wherein it was informed that altogether 18 persons including the petitioners were staying over the land in question by making permanent/temporary houses and shops. It was also considered by the respondent no. 3 that Rangi Mahatain had got “Jot Patta” over the said land on 07.01.1940 and thereafter she started living over the same along with her family by paying rent to the ex-landlord and the said settlement was not declared unlawful by any competent court of law. The respondent no. 3 also came to a finding that the petitioners are the descendants of Rangi Mahatain. 7. Under the said factual and legal context, the respondent no. 3 dropped the said encroachment proceeding as, according to him, dispossessing the petitioners from the said land after such a long possession over the same that too on a complaint of their relative, would not be in accordance with law. However, after about three years, the impugned notices dated 11.10.2018 were again issued to the petitioners by the respondent no. 3. 8. The Patna High Court in the case of Sri Kali Pd. Seal (supra), while considering the similar issue, has held that once proceeding for encroachment over a public land was dropped and the said order became final, the matter relating to the encroachment of public land cannot be re-agitated in a fresh proceeding. It has also been held by the Patna High Court in the case of Mahanth Ramagya Giri (supra) that officers concerned had no jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceeding after long 9 years when the matter regarding encroachment of public land was finally concluded earlier. It has also been held by the Patna High Court in the case of Mahanth Ramagya Giri (supra) that officers concerned had no jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceeding after long 9 years when the matter regarding encroachment of public land was finally concluded earlier. If the State was aggrieved with the earlier order of the Collector under the Act, 1956 whereby the proceeding was dropped and concluded, it could have preferred an appeal or revision. However in absence of any contrary order passed by the appellate/revisional authority, no fresh proceeding can be initiated over the same land under the provisions of the Act, 1956. 9. In the present case also, the respondent no. 3 had already dropped Encroachment Case No. 03 of 2014-15 in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 16.10.2015. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have not averred in the counter affidavit that aggrieved with the said order, the State preferred any appeal or revision. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Encroachment Case No. 03 of 2014-15 attained finality. Hence, as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cited cases, subsequent encroachment proceeding under the provisions of the Act, 1956 for the same land is not permissible. 10. The stand taken in the counter affidavit that the present land encroachment proceeding has been initiated on the basis of fresh report of Halka Karamchari, Chas and hence the same will not be barred by the principles of res-judicata, is completely misconceived. Though the respondents have not annexed the copy of any fresh report prepared by Halka Karamchari, Chas regarding the land in question, however even if it is presumed to have been prepared, the same does not change the legal position that once the land encroachment proceeding for the same land has been dropped by the same authority i.e. the respondent no. 3, which has not been challenged before higher courts of law, no further proceeding can be initiated for the said purpose. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Others, (1982) 2 SCC 134 , has also held as under: “9. Facts which raise a bona-fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Others, (1982) 2 SCC 134 , has also held as under: “9. Facts which raise a bona-fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision.” 12. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the impugned notices dated 11.10.2018 issued to the petitioners by the respondent no. 3 in Encroachment Case No. 11 of 2018-19 are completely illegal, hence the same are quashed. It is however observed that if the State claims the title of the land in question, it is at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, if so advised. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.