- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellants have challenged the order of eviction passed against them in the proceedings initiated under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Since both the petitioners-appellants have identical facts in their cases, therefore, by taking facts of the case of writ petition being CWJC No. 3648 of 1997(R), both Letters Patent Appeals are decided.
(3.) As per the facts stated by the writ petitioners, Banmali Pramanik, father of the petitioners-appellants was in possession of a piece of land since 1960 measuring 0.02.20 Hectares of land and he used to run hotel and sweet meat shop in the name and style of Subhankari Mistanna Bhandar. The said Bamnali Pramanik remained in possession till he was alive and thereafter the petitioners being his sons and daughter continued in possession and thereby acquired right and title by adverse possession in the land in question. However, in the year 1982 or prior to it, one proceeding was initiated under the Bihar Public Lands Encroachment Act, 1956 against the said Banmali Pramanik. That proceeding was dropped vide order dated 31st December, 1982. One other person Shyam Bahadur Thakur, who was not a party in the proceeding initiated against Banmali Pramanik, preferred an appeal against dropping of the proceedings under the Act of 1956. Finding this situation, Banmali Pramanik preferred a writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court being CWJC No. 1204 of 1983(R), which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide detailed order dated 8th January, 1990, wherein it has been held that the said Shyam Bahadur Thakur has no locus standi to challenge the order dropping the proceeding of eviction under the Act of 1956. Thereafter the petitioner, son of said Banmali Pramanik, was again served with a notice dated 27th December, 1994 for taking up the eviction proceeding against him. The petitioner aggrieved against the said notice, preferred writ petition i.e., CWJC No. 1932 of 1995(R), which was allowed by Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court vide order dated 11th July, 1996 and the order dated 9th October, 1995 which was passed during the pendency of CWJC No. 1932 of 1995(R) for eviction of the writ petitioner was also quashed after observing that the Executive Engineer has not only flouted the interim order of this Court but has also had not given opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner before passing the order of eviction dated 9th October, 1995. However, the writ petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation to the said authority and the authority was directed to dispose of the same within month and till such representation is decided , the petitioner's possession was protected by the same order dated 11th July, 1996. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11th July, 1996 passed in CWJC No.1932 of 1995(R), the petitioner submitted representation which was dismissed and eviction order was passed by the Circle Officer on 17th August, 1996. Aggrieved against the order dated 17th August, 1996, petitioner preferred writ petition being CWJC No. 2566 of 1996(R). Petitioner's this writ petition being CWJC No.2566 of 1996(R) was disposed of vide order dated 29th August, 1997 with permission to challenge the order dated 17th August, 1996 by preferring an appeal before the competent authority under the Act of 1956. The petitioner preferred appeal being BPLE No. 57 of 199798 before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum district, Jamshedpur. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 5th December,1997. Aggrieved against the order dated 5th December, 1997, the petitioner preferred writ petition being CWJC No. 3648 of 1997(R), which has been decided by the learned Single Judge along with another writ petition being CWJC No.1251 of 1997(R), preferred by the brother and sister of the writ petitioner of CWJC No. 3648 of 1997(R). On identical facts and circumstances, both the writ petitions being CWJC No.3648 of 1997(R) and CWJC No. 1251 of 1997(R) have been dismissed by common judgment dated 3rd December, 2003. Hence, these Letters Patent Appeals.;