JUDGMENT : W.P.(C) No. 1060 of 2021 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to demolish the structure standing over the land appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 28, C.S. Plot Nos. 187/2 & 143/3, measuring an area of 1.43 Acres & 0.57 Acre respectively, Mouza-Amaghata, Thana No. 9, P.S-Dhanbad (now Saraidhela), District-Dhanbad on the alleged ground of encroachment over public land. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his ancestor, namely, Koka Manjhi being a landless person applied before the Circle Officer, Dhanbad for settlement of ‘Gair Abad’ land, who issued notice dated 11.08.1955 for general information that some plots including the aforesaid plots under C.S. Khata No. 28 were being settled with the ‘Harizan’ and ‘Aadivasi’ of Mouza-Saraidhela by the Government of Bihar and the names of those persons along with description of land to be settled were also mentioned in the said notice. It was also mentioned in the said notice that if any person had objection to the same, he/she might submit his/her objection by 28.08.1955. The land in question was finally settled in favour of Koka Manjhi (the great-grandfather) of the petitioner and he came in possession of the same. The State also recognized the petitioner’s ancestor as raiyat of the said land and issued rent receipts after realizing the rent for the year 1955-56 to 2008-09. W.P.(C) No. 1026 of 2021 3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice as contained in memo No. 353 dated 02.03.2021 whereby the Circle Officer, Dhanbad has directed the petitioner to appear in person along with the relevant documents alleging that he has encroached the land appertaining to Khata No. 28, Plot No. 187, Mouza-Amaghata, District-Dhanbad, measuring an area of 16.14 Decimals. 4. The petitioner’s contention is that he had purchased the land in question by virtue of registered sale deed dated 06.10.1997 from one Govind Ram Agarwal and since then he has been in possession of the same. The petitioner got the said land mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No. 553(II) of 1999-2000 and also paid rent to the government till 2011-12. The petitioner got the said land mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No. 553(II) of 1999-2000 and also paid rent to the government till 2011-12. The vendor of the petitioner, namely, Govind Ram Agarwal had purchased the said land from Shantanu Choudhary by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.03.1988 whereas Shantanu Choudhary had purchased the said land from Dhanbad Vikash Housing Construction Co-operative Limited by virtue of registered sale deed dated 21.01.1988. The said Co-operative Society had purchased the said land from one Bhudeo Chandra Mahato @ Bhudeo Mahato by virtue of registered sale deed dated 26.06.1986. Bhudeo Chandra Mahato had purchased the said land from Smt. Hemia Mahatain on 07.06.1962. It has been mentioned in the said sale deed itself that necessary permission for the said transfer was obtained under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1908’] from the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No. 654/1961-62. It is further contended that R.S. Plot No. 196 of R.S. Khata No. 89 has wrongly been recorded in Khatian in the name of ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’, though in the remarks column, the possession of Bhudeo Mahato has been shown. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of the said land which has been registered as Original Suit No. 299 of 2021 and the same is still pending. W.P.(C) No. 1290 of 2021 5. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in memo No. 356 dated 02.03.2021 issued by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad whereby the petitioner No.1 has been directed to appear before the said authority with the documents relating to the revenue records of the land appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 28, C.S. Plot No. 187, Mouza-Aamaghata, District-Dhanbad, measuring an area of 19.79 Decimals alleging that she has encroached the said land. 6. The petitioners’ contention is that the petitioner No.1 purchased 7 Katthas land situated at Mouza-Amaghata (Mouza No.9), C.S. Plot No. 187, C.S. Khata No. 28 from Barun Kumar Mehta and Smt. Nisha Kumari by virtue of registered sale deed No. 8327 dated 06-12-2012 and thereafter she came in possession of the said land. The petitioner No.2 came in possession of 3 Katthas land adjacent to the aforesaid 7 Katthas land by virtue of power of attorney granted by Barun Kumar Mehta. The petitioner No.2 came in possession of 3 Katthas land adjacent to the aforesaid 7 Katthas land by virtue of power of attorney granted by Barun Kumar Mehta. Thus, the petitioners own and possess 10 Katthas land in C.S. Plot No. 187, C.S. Khata No. 28 within Mouza-Amaghata. Jamabandi/Thoka No. 91 had also been created in the names of Barun Kumar Mehta and Smt. Nisha Kumari, i.e. vendors of the petitioners, who had purchased the aforesaid land from Rajesh Kumar Jaluka and Ashok Kumar Jaluka by virtue of registered sale deed No. 11114 dated 20-12 2006. Rajesh Kumar Jaluka and Ashok Kumar Jaluka had purchased the said land from Suprava Choudhary by virtue of registered sale deed No. 2965 dated 11-03-1988. Suprava Choudhary along with her husband and son, namely, Dilip Choudhary and Shri Shantanu Choudhary respectively and Nandlal Prasad Gupta had purchased 2 Bighas land out of 13.5 Acres in C.S. Plot No.187 from Dhanbad Vikash Housing Construction Co-operative Limited by virtue of registered sale deed No. 876 dated 21-01 1988. Dhanbad Vikash Housing Construction Co-operative Limited had purchased 13.5 Acres of land in C.S. Plot No. 187 from Bhudeo Chandra Mahato by virtue of registered sale deed No. 6937 dated 26-06-1986 whereas Bhudeo Chandra Mahato had purchased 31 Acres 16.5 Decimals land in C.S. Plot No. 187 from Hemia Mahatain, wife of Dukhu Mahato by virtue of registered sale deed No. 8679 dated 07-06-1962. W.P.(C) No. 1291 of 2021 7. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in memo No. 354 dated 02.03.2021 whereby the petitioner was directed to appear in person before the respondent No.3 with all documents relating to revenue records of the land appertaining to C.S. Plot No. 187, C.S. Khata No. 28, Mouza-Aamaghata, District-Dhanbad, measuring an area of 10 Katthas (16.5 Decimals) alleging that he has encroached the said land. 8. The petitioner’s contention is that the land in question was purchased by Chandra Shekhar Singh by virtue of registered sale deed No. 7996 dated 17-07-2009 from Manoj Kumar Agarwal and Rambhaj Agarwal. Chandra Shekhar Singh got his name mutated vide Mutation Case No. 1532(ii) of 2014-15 and paid rent to the government under Jamabandi No. 1356 till 2014-15. The father of Manoj Agarwal, namely, Pitarumal Agarwal had purchased 10 Katthas land by virtue of registered sale deed No. 2978 dated 14-03- 1988 from Nandlal Prasad Gupta. Chandra Shekhar Singh got his name mutated vide Mutation Case No. 1532(ii) of 2014-15 and paid rent to the government under Jamabandi No. 1356 till 2014-15. The father of Manoj Agarwal, namely, Pitarumal Agarwal had purchased 10 Katthas land by virtue of registered sale deed No. 2978 dated 14-03- 1988 from Nandlal Prasad Gupta. Rambhaj Agarwal had purchased 10 Katthas land from Dilip Choudhary by virtue of registered sale deed No. 2963 dated 11-03-1988. Nandlal Prasad Gupta had purchased 2 Bighas land out of 13.5 Acres land from Dhanbad Vikash Housing Construction Co-operative Limited by virtue of registered sale deed No. 876 dated 21-01-1988. Dhanbad Vikash Housing Construction Co-operative Limited had purchased total 25 Acres of land from Bhudeo Chandra Mahato by virtue of registered sale deed No. 6937 dated 26-06-1986 out of which 13.5 Acres land was related to C.S. Khata No. 28, C.S. Plot No. 187. Bhudeb Chandra Mahato had purchased total 31 Acres & 16.5 Decimals land from Hemia Mahatain, wife of Dukhu Mahato by virtue of registered sale deed No. 8679 dated 07-06-1962 out of which 13.5 Acres land belonged to C.S. Plot No. 187, C.S. Khata No. 28. Chandra Shekhar Singh died leaving behind his wife-Sushma Singh and one son-Avinash Kumar Singh as his heirs and legal representatives. However, since both the heirs of the deceased Chandra Shekhar Singh were not in a position to look after and manage the said property, they empowered the petitioner by means of power of attorney dated 04-03-2021, who happens to be own brother of the deceased Chandra Shekhar Singh, to look after, manage, deal with and/or prosecute any proceeding arising out of the said land. The rent of the said land was paid since acquisition of the same till the year 2014-15, however, the revenue authorities, especially, the Circle Officer, Dhanbad stopped collecting rent since 2015-16 on the pretext of digitalization of the land records. W.P.(C) No. 1299 of 2021 9. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice as contained in memo No. 344 dated 02.03.2021 whereby the petitioner has been directed to appear before the Circle Officer, Dhanbad with the documents relating to revenue records of the land appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 28, C.S. Plot No. 187, Mouza-Aamaghata, District-Dhanbad, measuring an area of 5.23 Decimals alleging that she has encroached the said land. 10. 10. The petitioner’s contention is that her husband purchased the said land appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 2 (R.S. Khata No. 26), C.S. Plot No. 185 (R.S. Plot No. 72), Mouza-Amaghata, Mouza No. 9, District-Dhanbad, measuring an area of 6.60 Decimals by virtue of registered sale deed No. 7528/7100 dated 24.07.2007 from M/s Sahyogi Properties Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner’s husband got the said land mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No. 1401(II)/2008-09 and paid rent to the government till 2020. The petitioner has constructed a house over the said land wherein she has been residing without any complain and dispute. The petitioner has no concern with the land under Khata No. 28, Plot No. 187 as mentioned in notice dated 02.03.2021, however, the respondents have arbitrarily demolished the part of her house. 11. Per-contra, the stand of the respondents is that Encroachment Case No. 54/2020-21 was instituted against the petitioners and others in which the notices were issued to them with a direction to appear before the Circle Officer, Dhanbad along with the relevant documents relating to their land as on enquiry, it was found that the government land was illegally encroached by the land grabbers after creating false and forged documents. The land situated at Mouza-Amaghata under C.S. Khata No. 28 was recorded as ‘Gair Abad Malik’ in the Cadastral Survey Settlement Record of Rights and in the recent revisional survey operation, it was also recorded as ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’. The Circle Officer is the competent authority to issue notices to all such encroachers under Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1956’]. On receipt of the notices, the petitioners appeared before the Circle Officer, Dhanbad, however, they failed to produce sufficient documents in support of their legal possession over the land in question. In the recent revisional survey operation, the R.S. Khatian has finally been published in the name of ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’, however, in the remarks column, Garjan Marandi has been shown in illegal possession of the said land. Accordingly, the order for removal of encroachment has been passed in the aforesaid encroachment case vide common order dated 09.03.2021. The petitioners have not preferred appeal against the said order before the appellate authority and thus the order passed in Encroachment Case No. 54 of 2020-21 has attained its finality. Accordingly, the order for removal of encroachment has been passed in the aforesaid encroachment case vide common order dated 09.03.2021. The petitioners have not preferred appeal against the said order before the appellate authority and thus the order passed in Encroachment Case No. 54 of 2020-21 has attained its finality. Hence, the illegal encroachment made thereupon is liable to be removed through due process of law. The petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest in collusion with some revenue staff, fraudulently got their names entered in revenue records and obtained rent receipts on the basis of false and frivolous documents, however, having found the said Jamabandi suspicious, the realization of rent was stopped. It is a well settled principle of law that mutation or revenue receipt does not confer title to any person and therefore the petitioners by resorting to such fabricated documents, cannot claim to be settled raiyats. The Act, 1956 outlines the procedure of appeal and review under Section 11 and Section 13 respectively and unless those avenues of grievance redressal are exhausted, the petitioners have no cause of action to move before this Court by filing the writ petitions to inhibit and overawe the rightful legal procedure enshrined under the Act, 1956. The land in question was recorded as ‘Gair Abad Malik’ in the Cadastral Survey Settlement Record of Rights after vesting of the intermediary interest with the State Government and accordingly it has been recorded as ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’ in recent revisional survey settlement operation, however, in the remarks column of possession of the R.S. Khatian, the name of Bhudeo Chandra Mahato was recorded as ‘Awaidh Dakhalkar’ and therefore it would be evident that the petitioners, whose rights were originated from Bhudeo Chandra Mahato, have got no valid document of title in their favour. Accordingly, the Circle Officer, Dhanbad has rightly passed the order dated 09.03.2021 for removal of encroachment made thereupon. The original Jamabandi No. 28 was marked cross (X) and therefore subsequent Jamabandies including Jamabandi No. 138 created from Jamabandi No. 28 having been found suspicious, the proceeding for cancellation of the same relating to C.S. Khata No. 28, C.S. Plot Nos. 143 & 187, was initiated on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhanbad. 143 & 187, was initiated on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhanbad. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that mutation of a property does not create or extinguish title nor it has any presumptive value on the title of the property. Neither the entry made in the revisional survey settlement has been objected by the petitioners under Section 83 nor suits before the Revenue Officer have been instituted under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Moreover, no dispute was raised at any stage of revisional survey operation regarding any entry made by the Revenue Officer. Since the respondents were restrained from demolishing the structures made over the land in question vide interim order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No 1060/2021, no demolition of structures made over the land in question was done. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioners have challenged the notices wherein it has been claimed that they have encroached the land under C.S. Khata No. 28, C.S. Plot No. 187 which is a government land. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that Encroachment Case No. 54 of 2020-21 was instituted against the petitioners followed by issuance of the impugned notices to them. Finally, vide order dated 09.03.2021, the petitioners have been declared encroachers as the land in question has been recorded as ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’ in the Record of Rights. 13. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the said land since long on the strength of the valid documents of title and as such they cannot be evicted under land encroachment proceeding which is summary in nature. It has been further contended that if the respondent-State has any claim over the land in question, it may approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the said purpose. The petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1299 of 2021 has even asserted that she has no concern with the land under R.S. Khata No. 28, Plot No. 187, rather she is in possession of the land appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 2, C.S. Plot No. 185. 14. The petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1299 of 2021 has even asserted that she has no concern with the land under R.S. Khata No. 28, Plot No. 187, rather she is in possession of the land appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 2, C.S. Plot No. 185. 14. In support of above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court as well as the Patna High Court. 15. In the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr. reported in (1982) 2 SCC 134 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “8. It seems to us clear from these provisions that the summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by Section 6 of the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is “the property of the Government”. In regard to property described in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 2, there can be no doubt, difficulty or dispute as to the title of the Government and, therefore, in respect of such property, the Government would be free to take recourse to the summary remedy of eviction provided for in Section 6. A person who occupies a part of a public road, street, bridge, the bed of the sea and the like, is in unauthorised occupation of property which is declared by Section 2 to be the property of the Government and, therefore, it is in public interest to evict him expeditiously, which can only be done by resorting to the summary remedy provided by the Act. But Section 6(1) which confers the power of summary eviction on the Government limits that power to cases in which a person is in unauthorised occupation of a land “for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3”. Section 3, in turn, refers to unauthorised occupation of any land “which is the property of the Government”. If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. In the instant case, there is unquestionably a genuine dispute between the State Government and the respondents as to whether the three plots of land were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings taken by the then Government of Hyderabad and whether the Osmania University, for whose benefit the plots are alleged to have been acquired, had lost title to the property by operation of the law of limitation. The suit filed by the University was dismissed on the ground of limitation, inter alia, since Nawab Habibuddin was found to have encroached on the property more than 12 years before the date of the suit and the University was not in possession of the property at any time within that period. Having failed in the suit, the University activated the Government to evict the Nawab and his transferees summarily, which seems to us impermissible. The respondents have a bona fide claim to litigate and they cannot be evicted save by the due process of law. The summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. That procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law for evicting the respondents. 9. The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by Section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of “a very recent origin”, cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by the learned Single Judge himself in another case which is reported in Meharunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. [(1970) 1 Andh LT 88] which was affirmed by a Division Bench [Meherunnissa Begum v. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1971 AP 382 ] . It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. 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. 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. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law. 10. The conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary enquiry contemplated by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. Maybe, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily.” 16. In the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Chancla Devi reported in 2018(1) JBCJ 584 , the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “9. It appears from the facts of the case that the presumption on the part of the Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land is not permissible in the eyes of law. If the State Government is claiming the ownership upon the property in question, which is in possession of the original petitioners and which is in possession of the predecessor-in-title from 09.06.1942, the Civil Suit is the only remedy available with the State of Jharkhand. They cannot drag the citizens to be the plaintiff. The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff. They cannot drag the citizens to be the plaintiff. The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff. Burden of proof that the State is owner of the property in question lies upon the State Government. The defendant has to deny the allegations and nothing beyond that. There is vast difference between burden of proof for the plaintiff and for the defendant. The purchasers of the property by the registered sale deeds in the year 1992 from their predecessor-in-title Rang Nath Sahu, who is owner of the property from 09.06.1942, cannot be upset by a report of Halka Karamchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. Prima-facie, no fraud has been played by the purchasers of the property who are the petitioners in the writ petitions. Likewise, prima-facie, Rang Nath Sahu is the owner of the property, looking to the revenue entry from 1995-1956. Thus, more than 30 years old entries and documents cannot be upset by or cannot be brushed aside by one line report of the HalkaKaramchari that the land in question is a Gair Majaruwa Malik Land. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions W.P.(C) No. 2900 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No. 4452 of 2008 and we see no reason to take any other view to what is taken by the learned Single Judges in both the writ petitions.” 17. In the case of Nagendra Mistry Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 209 , a Bench of the Patna High Court has held as under:- “8. In the case reported in A.I.R. 1955, Patna, page-1, Special Bench of this Court held that a person on account of the afflux of time acquires title by acquiring possession to a property which was at one time a public property, that property cannot be taken by the State, even according to the continual of time of eminent possession, subsequently, without payment of compensation. It is further held that no private individual can take possession of Gairmazarua land and if such person acquires and perfects title to it by being in adverse possession for more that the statutory period even in respect of the so-called public lands like Gairmazarua Am etc. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Govt. It is further held that no private individual can take possession of Gairmazarua land and if such person acquires and perfects title to it by being in adverse possession for more that the statutory period even in respect of the so-called public lands like Gairmazarua Am etc. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Thumulls Krishna Rao, reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1081 held that person in unauthorized occupation of government land cannot be evicted in the summary proceeding, where complicated question of title arise for decision. The duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of the property, upon which for appreciable length of time can be taken prima facie to have a bonafide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law.” 18. In the case of Smt. Rekha Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1992(2) PLJR 854 , the Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) has held as under:- “8. It has been well settled by now that the summary remedy for eviction under the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against the persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is "the property of Government". If there is a bonafide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and, on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. 9. In the instant case, unquestionably, the petitioners have a bona fide claim to litigate and they cannot be evicted save by the due process of law. The summary remedy prescribed under the Act is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. That procedure is, therefore, not the due process for evicting the petitioners.” 19. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that a person, who is allegedly in unauthorized occupation of government land cannot be evicted in a summary proceeding where complicated question of title arises for decision. That procedure is, therefore, not the due process for evicting the petitioners.” 19. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that a person, who is allegedly in unauthorized occupation of government land cannot be evicted in a summary proceeding where complicated question of title arises for decision. It is presumed that a person, who is in occupation of the property for considerable length of time, has bonafide claim to the property and in such a situation, an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law is necessary seeking his/her eviction from the said property. 20. It appears that the land situated at Mouza-Amaghata, P.S No. 9, P.S-Dhanbad (now Saraidhela), District-Dhanbad under C.S. Khata No. 28 has been recorded as ‘Gair Abad Malik’. In the recent revisional survey settlement, R.S. Plot Nos. 196 & 194 of R.S. Khata No. 89 have been carved out from C.S. Plot No. 187 of C.S. Khata No. 28. On perusal of the Record of Rights of R.S. Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 89, it would be evident that the same has been recorded as ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’, however, in the remarks column, the said land has been shown to be in the illegal possession of Garjan Marandi. Further, R.S. Plot No. 196 under R.S. Khata No. 89 has been recorded as ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’ and the same has been shown in the illegal possession of Bhudeo Chandra Mahato. 21. The claim of the respondents is that since Bhudeo Chandra Mahato and Garjan Marandi were in illegal possession of the land in question, they had no right, title and interest over the land in question. Moreover, the transferees of the said land will not get better title than that of the vendors. 22. Be that as it may. The petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the said land since long and the said fact is substantiated from the Revisional Record of Rights itself. The Jamabandi has also been opened in their names and they have paid rent to the government for a considerable period. It is true that the mutation neither confers nor extinguishes title of any person, however, the mutation certainly shows the possession of a person over the land. The Jamabandi has also been opened in their names and they have paid rent to the government for a considerable period. It is true that the mutation neither confers nor extinguishes title of any person, however, the mutation certainly shows the possession of a person over the land. Mere fact that the land has been recorded as ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’, is not sufficient to dispossess a person from the same in an encroachment proceeding which is summary in nature, if that person is found in possession of the said land without any disturbance from the government for considerable period that too, when the State acknowledges the possession of that person by issuing rent receipts. 23. The petitioner-Garjan Marandi claims that the land in question was acquired by his great grandfather by way of settlement. The other petitioners have claimed that Hemia Mahatain had transferred the land in question to Bhudeo Chandra Mahato by virtue of registered sale deed executed on 07.06.1962 by taking necessary permission under Section 46 of the Act, 1908 from the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No. 654/1961-62 for transferring the said land to Bhudeo Chandra Mahato. The said claim of the petitioners is required to be examined by adducing evidences from both the sides which is not possible in summary proceeding as has been initiated in the present case. Land encroachment proceeding can be initiated only in a case where it is apparently clear that the government/public land has been encroached by any person and the action for removal is taken soon after the alleged encroachment or within a reasonable period. If the occupant has sufficient material to show that he has bonafide claim of title over the said land, the proper forum for adjudication of such claim is the Civil Court and the party, who seeks removal/dispossession, should move such Court. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the encroachment proceeding initiated vide Encroachment Case No. 54/2020-21 which resulted in passing the order dated 09.03.2021 declaring the petitioners as encroachers and all consequential actions taken thereunder are hereby quashed. The respondent-State of Jharkhand will however be at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the concerned Civil Court claiming its title over the said land. 25. These writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. 26. Consequently, I.A. No. 5644/2021 [W.P.(C) No. 1290/2021] and I.A. No. 7473/2021 [W.P.(C) No. 1299/2021] also stand disposed of. The respondent-State of Jharkhand will however be at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the concerned Civil Court claiming its title over the said land. 25. These writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. 26. Consequently, I.A. No. 5644/2021 [W.P.(C) No. 1290/2021] and I.A. No. 7473/2021 [W.P.(C) No. 1299/2021] also stand disposed of. Contempt Case (Civil) No. 179 of 2021 27. The present contempt application has been filed by the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1026 of 2021 alleging that the respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court whereby they were directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 02.03.2021. 28. It has been claimed by the petitioner that the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court between 11.00 A.M to 11.30 A.M was communicated to the Circle Officer, Dhanbad on telephone as well as on WhatsApp. Moreover, the learned G.P-IV had also informed the said authority about the interim order of this Court, however, the respondents demolished the godown of the petitioner on the same day and thus they have violated the aforesaid order. 29. The O.P. No.2 has filed show cause affidavit stating that the demolition work was continuing since 10.00 A.M on 10.03.2021, however, as soon as he came to know about the order of stay passed by this Court, he immediately stopped the same. 30. No doubt, the godown of the petitioner was partially demolished on the day on which the order of stay was passed by this Court. However, the exact timing of the impugned action is in dispute. The petitioner has claimed that his godown was demolished after 1.00 P.M and till that time, the opposite parties were well aware of the order of stay dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court, whereas the O.P. No.2 has claimed that the demolition was continuing since 10.00 A.M on the said date, however, it was stopped as soon as he was informed about the interim order of this Court. In absence of any evidence of wilful and deliberate violation of the interim order of this Court, a contempt proceeding cannot be initiated against the opposite parties. 31. Hence, the contempt proceeding as against the opposite party No.2 is dropped. 32. The present contempt application stands disposed of.