M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 3, Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Dhanbad in BPLE Case No. 244/1991 -92 and also the order dated 27.12.1999 passed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in BPLE Appeal No. 1/98. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notice dated 5.5.2000 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been asked/ directed to remove the encroachment from plot Nos. 1139 and 1058 under Khata No. 10 of Mouja, Jealgroa, Dhanbad. Copies of the orders dated 13.1.1998 and 27.12.1999 have been annexed as Annexures 6, and 8 to the writ application.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3, the LRDC, Dhanbad initiated a proceeding under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (shortly BPLE Act) against the petitioner for removal of encroachment from plot Nos. 1139 and 1058 of khata No. 10 of Mouja, Jealgora, District Dhanbad. The petitioner appeared and filed show cause claiming right, title, interest and possession over the said land. The LRDC, Dhanbad after hearing the parties, passed final order on 13.1.1998 directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment from the said land. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Dhanbad being BPLE appeal No. 1/98. The appeal was finally heard and dismissed on 27.12.1999, These two orders have been impugned in this writ application. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the land in question has been coming In possession of the petitioner and his predecessor in interest for a long time. Learned Counsel contended that the land originally belonged to Bhagwati Prasad Khaitan who sold the same to the petitioner and others by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17.3.1988 and they were put in Akas possession of the land. After purchase the petitioner got his name mutated in the records of the State of Bihar and has been paying rent. Mr. Sinha further submitted that although the petitioner filed all the documents before respondent No. 2 and 3 in support of his title but the respondents -authorities without considering the documents and without appreciating the law, have passed the impugned orders of removal of encroachment against the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that serious disputed question of title cannot be decided in a summary proceeding and the only remedy to the Government was to institute a suit for recovery of possession. Learned Counsel put heavy reliance on the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081.
(3.) BEFORE appreciating the submissions of Mr. Sinha I would like to go through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Krishna Rao, (supra). In the case before the Supreme Court the land admittedly belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claimed to have purchased it. The question which fell for consideration was whether title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and that whether Nawab Habibuddin encroached upon the property and thereafter perfected his title by adverse possession. Their lordships held that such a question cannot be decided in a summary proceeding under the Land Encroachment Act. Their lordships observed as follows : - - 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 in 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. May its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily.";