- (1.) BY the Court. -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN , view of the subsequent development brought on record. it appears that although, this writ application was preferred for a number of relief(s), petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent authorities specifically respondent Nos. 3 to 6 restraining them from taking action in the matter of removal of encroachment over the land in question covered by the Notification dated 1st July 1955 under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, so long the appropriate proceeding under the provisions of BPLE Act. 1956 are not concluded either away. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a mere perusal of the counter -affidavit lied on behalf of the respondents 3 to 6 specifically the order of the Circle Officer contained at Annexure -C, would indicate that the Circle Officer, Burmu Circle, Ranchi has recommended that apart from an area of 3.18 acre of land, proceedings for removal of encroachment could be undertaken in respect of remaining portion of 7.27 acres of lands on plot No. 160 and 0.56 acres of land on plot No. 356 of mouza Bishrampur against the petitioners. The reason for excluding 3.18 acres of land has been indicated in the said order stating that the said piece of land has been mutated in Misc. No. 4/1977 -78 by the Circle Officer of the concerned circle and thereafter, rent receipts have also been issued in favour of the petitioners.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents submits that proceedings in respect of removal of encroachment of entire piece of land were initiated before the competent" authority under BPLE Act, 1956 and thereafter, an appeal was also preferred by the respondent CCL being Misc. Appeal No. 20R -15/2005 -06 wherein" the petitioners have also participated. ";