ORDER : 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the S.C./S.T. Act”), for grant of anticipatory bail, since they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.263/2022 registered at Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 332, 353, 34 of the IPC ad Section 3(1) ¼n½ , 3(1) ¼/k½ of the S.C./S.T. Act. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Deepak Ekka, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ramanujganj, in pursuance of the order(s) passed by the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Ramanujganj for removal of encroachment made by the appellants in Nazul Plot No.950 admeasuring area 0.0½ hectares, proceeded along with the team of the Tehsildar, Ramanujganj to the said place. The appellants were duly informed about the order passed by the Tehsildar, Ramunujganj orally as also through the mobile phone and a request was made by them to remove the encroachment However, the appellants resisted and obstructed the official work and also used filthy language against the officers and his team and pushed them. The video clip of such incident was prepared, however, due to the obstruction caused by the appellants, the encroachment could not be removed. Based on such allegations, the aforesaid offence under the IPC has been registered. Later on, since the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category, the offence under Section 3(1) ¼n½ , 3(1) ¼/k½ of the S.C./ST. Act has also been added. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants were in possession of the encroached land bearing plot No.950/2 admeasuring area 10 x 15 = 150 sq. ft. situated at Ramanujganj for many decades by constructing small shop over the said land. Earlier, an encroachment case was registered against the appellants and a penalty of Rs.500/- was imposed on them in the year 1998-99. Thereafter, in the year 2009, again an encroachment proceeding was initiated against appellant No.1 Arun Kumar Keshari and a penalty of Rs.200/- was imposed on him and an eviction order was also passed on 18.8.2009 under Section 248 of the CG Land Revenue Code (in short “the Code”). Inspite of such eviction order, the appellants continued in unauthorised possession of the subject property. Inspite of such eviction order, the appellants continued in unauthorised possession of the subject property. Later on, as per the policy promulgated by the State vide Circular dated 11.9.2019 for settlement of the Government land in favour of persons, who are in possession of the said land prior to 20.8.2017, the appellants preferred an application for settlement of the land in terms of the policy on 17.7.2020. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on such application filed by the appellants, the Revenue Inspector, Nazul Ramanujganj, after inspection of the spot, prepared a calculation sheet and found that the appellants have encroached upon some Nazul land and hence, recommended for its settlement as per the said policy. However, since the competent authority did not pass any order on the application filed by appellant No.1, he approached this Court by filing WPC No.2039/2022, in which, vide order dated 28.4.2022, the competent authority was directed to decide the application preferred by the appellant on 17.7.2020, taking note of the documents submitted by him as also the enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 20.12.2020 before the Nazul Officer. It was also directed that the proceeding with regard to allotment be concluded expeditiously within a stipulated time. He further submits that in pursuance of such direction issued by this Court, the matter was taken up before the Nazul Adhikhari, Ramanujganj, who dismissed the application of the appellant vide impugned order dated 18.7.2022. He submits that since the order dated 18.7.2022 was not passed strictly in accordance with law, again a challenge was made before the High Court vide WPC No.4129/2022 and a contempt petition has also been filed, which goes to show that the said order has not attained finality. He would also submit that after passing of the order dated 18.7.2022, the State Authorities did not give breathing time to the appellants to remove the goods and articles kept in the shop encroached by them. In this regard, learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards Section 38 of the Code, which reads thus : "38. Manner of executing order to deliver possession of immovable property. In this regard, learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards Section 38 of the Code, which reads thus : "38. Manner of executing order to deliver possession of immovable property. - Where any person against whom an order to deliver possession of immovable property has been passed under this Code such order shall be executed in the following manner, namely :- (a) by serving a notice on the person or persons in possession requiring them within such time as may appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land; and (b) if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same; and (c) if the officer removing any such person is resisted or obstructed by any person, the Revenue Officer shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may, without prejudice to any proceedings to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force for the punishment of such resistance or obstruction, take or cause to be taken, such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force as may, in the opinion of such officer, be reasonably necessary for securing compliance with the order." 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further refers to the specific procedure stipulated under Section 248(2-A) of the Code, which provides that if any person continues in unauthorised possession or occupation of land for more than 7 days after the date of the order of ejectment, the concerned Sub Divisional Officer of the area has a statutory duty to follow due procedure of law. He submits that in the instant case, the concerned SDO (Revenue) slept over the matter for years and did not follow the due procedure of law and one fine day, rushed to the spot to evict the appellants forcefully, without giving any reasonable opportunity to them or complying with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the appellants, peacefully, without causing any hurt to the Government Officers and their team, resisted and obstructed them. Thereafter, the appellants immediately approached the High Court to avail the legal remedy. In such circumstances, the appellants, peacefully, without causing any hurt to the Government Officers and their team, resisted and obstructed them. Thereafter, the appellants immediately approached the High Court to avail the legal remedy. Learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions, would submit that the appellants are ready and willing to abide by the order dated 18.7.2022 passed by the competent revenue authorities and further, they have already voluntarily vacated the subject premises and they have no intention to violate the law. He would further submit that in CRMP No.1215/2022 filed by the appellants for quashing of the subject FIR, the appellants have already been granted interim protection by directing that till the next date of hearing of the said case, no coercive steps shall be taken against them. He further submits that on the date of the alleged incident, the complainant was discharging his official duty being a public servant and while discharge of duty by a public servant, colour, caste or religion shall not come across his way and further, the obstruction or resistance was not made on such account and therefore, registration of an offence under the Atrocities Act itself is doubtful. He submits that in view of the above, the bar under the Special Act does not appear to be applicable in the present case. He lastly submits that considering all these aspects and further considering that the interim protection has been granted only for a limited period, the appellants may be extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant/objector would submit that complainant Deepak Ekka being posted as a Chief Municipal Officer, Ramanujganj, was complying with the order passed by the concerned Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate and had gone to the spot for discharging his official duties. He submits that merely in order to harass the complainant, since he belongs to a member of the SC/ST category, the appellants have filed the writ petition by name maliciously and vexatiously though he was not having any ill-intention against the appellants. He submits that the complainant, in a bonafide and diligent manner, being an honest Government servant, was discharging his official duties. Hence, filing of such writ petition by name attracts the offence under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act and hence, a bar under Section 18 of the Special Act is also attracted. He submits that the complainant, in a bonafide and diligent manner, being an honest Government servant, was discharging his official duties. Hence, filing of such writ petition by name attracts the offence under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act and hence, a bar under Section 18 of the Special Act is also attracted. He would further submit that the appellants are habitual encroachers on the Government land and they have also encroached upon another land bearing Khasra No.536/1 area 1.05 acres, for which, an order for removal of encroachment has also been passed on 20.1.2021 by the Tehsildar, Ramanujganj. He prays for rejection of the bail application filed by the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the State would support the submissions putforth by learned counsel for the Objector. He would further submit that there are ten past criminal antecedents against appellant No.1 Arun Kumar Keshri, one against Sanjay Keshri, one against Ankit Kesari and three against Ashish Keshari, which all are registered at Police Station Ramanunjganj. He submits that considering all the aspects of the matter, the appellants are not entitled to be released on bail. 7. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in one case filed against appellant No.1 Arun Kumar Kesari, he has already been acquitted and now, only one case registered under the IPC, except the present one, is pending before the concerned ACJM and the other 7 cases, which are registered against him, are under the preventive laws since he is actively involved in politics. He further submits that the authorities did not give proper and sufficient time to vacate the subject premises, after passing of the eviction order, and since, now, the appellants has already vacated the encroached area, the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the appeal. 9. The eviction order was initially passed in the year 2009. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the appeal. 9. The eviction order was initially passed in the year 2009. As per the specific provision in this regard, the power is vested in the concerned SDO (Revenue) to issue notice to a person; and thereafter, if an eviction order is passed and such person still continues in unauthorized possession or occupation of land for more than seven days, he shall send him a warrant to be confined in a civil prison, but in the present case, the officers, who were vested with the statutory duty, did not follow such procedure and promoted encroachment in the area by neglecting their official duties. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the State has promulgated a scheme and policy for settlement of the land in favour of the encroachers and in this regard, when the appellant moved an application, the same was not decided promptly. Further, the Revenue Inspector without obtaining any direction from the Nazul Officer, gave a report in favour of the appellant that the land is suitable for allotment though in the order impugned, it has been categorically mentioned that the land has been identified and marked as ‘roadway’ as per the settlement year 1944-45. Learned counsel for the State highlighted that any allotment cannot be made in contravention of Section 237(g) – bazar & (j) - for public purposes such as schools, play grounds, parks, road, lanes, drains and the like; and the concerned Revenue Inspector in violation of the aforesaid Section and without scrutiny of the record, recommended allotment of land in favour of the appellants. The appellants being encroachers, were enjoying and gaining the fruits from the Government land for several years on account of negligence of duties by the concerned Government Officers posted in the field and not following the due course of law and pursuing writ petitions seeking protection one after another. In WA No.545/2022 preferred by appellant No.1 before this Court, vide order dated 10.10.2022, it has categorically been observed that an eviction order was passed against the appellants/petitioners by the Tehsildar under Section 248 of the Code long back on 18.8.2009, but the appellants were continuing in possession of the subject land unauthorizedly. 11. In WA No.545/2022 preferred by appellant No.1 before this Court, vide order dated 10.10.2022, it has categorically been observed that an eviction order was passed against the appellants/petitioners by the Tehsildar under Section 248 of the Code long back on 18.8.2009, but the appellants were continuing in possession of the subject land unauthorizedly. 11. Considering the aforesaid backdrop of the case as also considering the totality of the circumstances, it appears that after passing of the impugned order dated 18.7.2022, neither reasonable opportunity nor sufficient time of atleast 24 hours was granted to the appellants by the officers of the competent authority to vacate the encroached area and instead they rushed to the spot for forceful eviction of the appellants. Hence, looking to the manner in which the entire exercise has been carried out by the competent authorities and also the procedure adopted by them, this Court finds the present to be a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the appellants. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:- (a) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required, (b) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer, (c) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, (d) after filing of the charge sheet, they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (e) them shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. 13. 13. Before parting with the case, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the directions given in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 , for preparing the schemes for removal of encroachment/ eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants, inspite of directions, officers posted at the field level not discharging their duties with utmost care and the disciplinary authorities are also not viewing such misconduct seriously, that significantly promote the illegal encroachment of Government land. The relevant paras of the said judgment read thus :- 23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/poramboke/shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land. 24. Let a copy of this order be sent to all the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories in India who will ensure strict and prompt compliance with this order and submit compliance reports to this Court from time to time.” 14. In light of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in view of the observations made in this order, it is expected from the State to ensure that periodically, at least once in a year, the concerned Patwari, after making survey, whenever the fact of encroachment of Government land comes to his notice, shall send a report to the concerned Tahsildar for taking appropriate steps expeditiously. In turn, the Tahsildar shall draw the proceeding under Section 248 of the Code and while passing the order, not only impose fine but simultaneously shall also pass an order against such person, who shall be liable, at the discretion of the Tahsildar, to pay the rent of the land for the period of his unauthorised occupation at twice the rate admissible for such land in a locality. Further, the matter shall be reported to the concerned SDO (Revenue), if any person continues in unauthorized occupation or possession of land for more than seven days after the date of order of ejectment. 15. The concerned Secretary of the Revenue Department shall further ensure to issue appropriate circular/guidelines to all the Commissioners and Collectors, who, in turn, shall circulate the same to their subordinate Revenue Officers, Patwari etc for its compliance. Further, if any violation in this regard comes to the notice of the disciplinary authorities, it shall be dealt with appropriate disciplinary measure. 16. It would be further ensured that if any application is pending/filed for settlement, it shall be dealt with within a stipulated time frame; and unless proper settlement is not done to a person, who is living below poverty line, he shall not be harassed unnecessarily without due course of law. 17. Certified copy as per rules.