JUDGMENT : RAJESH KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s): (i) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by Respondent No. 2-Collector-cum-Circle Officer, Jamshedpur in B.P.L.E. Case No. 68/2020-21(Annexure-6), whereby in utter violation of the principle of natural justice and without even initiating any proceedings against the Petitioner, direction has been passed to remove encroachment over the alleged public land which is owned by Petitioner situated at Mouza Jugsalai, Ward No. 2, Khata No. 158, Plot No. 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 32, 26 having an area of 1.83 acre. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the notice bearing no. 778 dated 21.04.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2-Collectorate-cum-Circle Officer, Jamshedpur (Annexure-9) wherein it has been stated, inter alia that pursuant to order passed in B.P.L.E. Case No. 68/2020-21 in respect of Mouza Jugsalai, Ward No. 2, Khata No. 158, Plot No. 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 32, 26 having an area of 1.83 acre, proceedings for removal of encroachment is to be initiated and, further, direction has been issued to remove the articles from the said land within 48 years. (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including, Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondent No. 2 to initiate appropriate proceedings under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act 1956 as adopted by State of Jharkhand against the Petitioner and after granting due opportunity to the Petitioner pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, especially in view of the fact that the Petitioner is the owner of the land situated at Mouza Jugsalai, Ward No. 2, Khata No. 158, Plot No. 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 32, 26 having an area of 1.83 acre, but, no proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioner and on the contrary proceedings were initiated against Rajesh Kumar Agarwal (Proforma Respondent) who is not the owner of the land. 3. The factual matrix as has been pleaded by the petitioner is as follows: The dispute in the instant writ application pertains to a piece of land which was originally corresponding to Khata No. 516, Plot No. 101 & 114, for an area of 1.83 acre against the total area of 2.78 acres. 3. The factual matrix as has been pleaded by the petitioner is as follows: The dispute in the instant writ application pertains to a piece of land which was originally corresponding to Khata No. 516, Plot No. 101 & 114, for an area of 1.83 acre against the total area of 2.78 acres. The Khata No. 516 is now Khata No. 158 and Plot No. 114 is now Plot Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 32, 26 having an area of 1.83 acre. One V. V. Venkata Subramaniam purchased the aforesaid piece of land by a Registered Sale Deed bearing No. 2229 dated 13.08.1949 from the original landlord and his name was duly mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, one Bir Singh purchased the land in question pertaining to Khata No. 516, Plot No. 101 & 114, total admeasuring an area of 2.78 acres from the said V. V. Venkata Subramaniam vide Registered Sale Deed No. 1892 dated 06.05.1953. Bir Singh died leaving behind his only son, namely, Swarn Singh and the present Petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed bearing No. 7867 dated 31 December, 1985 purchased the said land from Swarn Singh. Further it is stated that petitioner purchased the land which was total admeasuring an area of 2.78 acres and out of the said land, the present dispute is being raised pertaining to 1.83 acre of land. In this context, it is stated that the land of the Petitioner is in possession of the Petitioner since the date of the purchase of the said land which is having proper boundary wall and even the name of the Petitioner is duly mutated under the municipal records and Petitioner has been issued rent receipt/holding tax receipts regularly by Jugsalai Nagar Parishad, Jugsalai. Petitioner even got a building plan sanction from the office of the Jugsalai Municipality vide Building Permit No. 24 dated 10.08.1998. The said building plan was forwarded to the Petitioner by the office of the Jugsalai Municipality vide letter dated 09.09.1998. Petitioner pursuant to the receipt of the said sanction plan has even constructed G+3 Floor building over the said land. The land of the Petitioner was situated adjacent to a piece of land which was owned by her husband Vinod Kumar Kullar over which said Vinod Kumar Kullar used to run his industry in the name and Style of 'Tata Nagar Metal Industries'. The land of the Petitioner was situated adjacent to a piece of land which was owned by her husband Vinod Kumar Kullar over which said Vinod Kumar Kullar used to run his industry in the name and Style of 'Tata Nagar Metal Industries'. It is further stated that G+3 Floor building which was constructed by the Petitioner after obtaining sanctioned plan from Jugsalai Municipality was used an administrative office of the industry of the husband of the Petitioner. Petitioner's husband Vinod Kumar Kullar vide two registered Sale Deeds bearing registered Sale Deeds both dated 29th January 2021 sold the land over which the industry was situated to one M/s. Baba Shyam Steel of which the Respondent No. 3-Rajesh Kumar Agarwal is a partner and also to M/s. Khatu Shyam Iron & Steel Private Limited in which the relatives of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal are the Directors. Since the Petitioner’s husband had sold the land to the Rajesh Kumar Agarwal vide two separate sale deeds, the said Rajesh Kumar Agarwal used to keep a watch over the said land of the petitioner. Merely because Rajesh Kumar Agarwal was the owner of the adjacent land, which was sold by the petitioner’s husband to him, a B.P.L.E proceeding being B.P.L.E. Case No. 68 of 2020-21 was initiated by the respondent no.2 against the respondent no.3 on the alleged ground that the land in question is the government land and recorded in the Khatiyan as Anaabad Bihar Sarkar Land, which has been encroached by said Rajesh Kumar Agarwal. The said B.P.L.E. proceeding was initiated pursuant to a report submitted in which Rajesh Kumar Agarwal was shown as the alleged encroacher over the land in question. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal never informed the Petitioner about any B.P.L.E. proceeding being initiated against him, and, the Petitioner was not being aware about any such proceeding initiated by Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 has passed a final order in B.P.L.E. Case No. 68/2020-21 and pursuant to the said final order a notice dated 03.02.2022 was issued by said authority against Respondent No. 3. After receipt of the said notice, the Respondent No. 3 for the first time verbally informed the Petitioner that alleged B.P.L.E. Case No. 68/2020-21 has been initiated in respect of the land of the Petitioner and in respect of the said land an order under B.P.L.E. Case has been passed. After receipt of the said notice, the Respondent No. 3 for the first time verbally informed the Petitioner that alleged B.P.L.E. Case No. 68/2020-21 has been initiated in respect of the land of the Petitioner and in respect of the said land an order under B.P.L.E. Case has been passed. Petitioner requested Respondent No. 3 to obtain certified copy of the said B.P.L.E. Case which was obtained and given to the Petitioner on or about 12th/13th March, 2022. In the said B.P.L.E. Case which was initiated on 18.01.2020 and the next date in the matter was fixed on 06.01.2021. On 06.01.2021, it was recorded that the encroacher was unavailable and, accordingly, the date was fixed as 20.01.2021. Despite the fact that on 06.01.2021, the next date in the B.P.L.E. proceedings was fixed as 20.01.2021, a final order in the said B.P.L.E. proceedings has been passed by Respondent No. 2 on 07.01.2021 itself, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. It has been submitted that this factual matrix has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Pursuant to the previous order dated 28.08.2025, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer, Jamshedpur is present before this Court and has assisted the learned counsel for the State. 6. From the pleadings and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the land in question is in possession of the petitioner for a long period of time, even the map has been passed by the competent authority for the purpose of construction. The different transactions are on the basis of registered sale deed. Thus, there is enough material to suggest that the land in question has changed and further it is in the possession of the raiyat for a long period of time. Further, one or the other authority has recognized the same by approving the map for the purpose of construction. 7. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another reported in (1982) 2 SCC 134 is relevant. Para 8 thereof is quoted hereunder: “8. Further, one or the other authority has recognized the same by approving the map for the purpose of construction. 7. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another reported in (1982) 2 SCC 134 is relevant. Para 8 thereof is quoted hereunder: “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 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 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.” 8. In view of the above factual matrix and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is hereby held that the present proceeding is not appropriate proceeding for resolving the dispute as it involves serious question of title and possession over the piece of land in question. The only remedy available to the parties is the civil dispute. 9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Respondent no.2 – Collector-cum-Circle Officer, Jamshedpur in B.P.L.E. Case No. 68 of 2020-21 (Annexure-6) is quashed and set aside as wholly without jurisdiction. However, parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law. 10. With the above observation, the present writ petition is disposed of.