S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of notice dated 10.03.2015, issued by the Circle Officer, Bundu, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts stated in the writ petition are that, the land comprised in Khata No. 352, Plot No. 1058 measuring 87 decimals situated at village Tau Khewat No. 54 under Revenue Thana No. 27, P.S. Bundu, Ranchi was recorded in the name of Gopi Mahto and others in the Revenue record. The father of the petitioner purchased 43 decimals of land out of the said land through the sada deed on 15.04.1938 from Rama Mahto and came in peaceful possession of the said land. Since the land was transferred through sada deed, through a registered sale deed on 19.09.2001 the said land was transferred by Lakhin Mahto in the name of Ramdhan Mahto. It is stated that 11 decimals of land out of the petitioner's land was acquired under Land Acquisition No. 20/2010 -11 for National Highway -33. For the said acquisition a compensation of Rs. 15,68,303/ - was fixed and a notice was issued to the father of the petitioner. However, no compensation was paid to the petitioner or his father still, notice dated 10.03.2015 was issued by the respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, 11 decimals of land of the petitioner was acquired and a notice was issued to the father of the petitioner on 23.02.2011, without paying compensation to the petitioner or his father, the said land has been acquired and notice dated 10.03.2015 has been issued, illegally, directing the petitioner to remove the construction over the said land. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted several representations however, the same have not been considered by the respondent -authority. In the notice dated 10.03.2015, there is no indication of any case instituted by the respondents so as to make the petitioner enable to appear in the proceeding and file his reply.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent -State of Jharkhand opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and submits that the petitioner after the land in question was acquired, became an encroacher and therefore, notice dated 10.03.2015 has been issued. It is further submitted that in response to notice issued to the petitioner on 10.03.2015, the petitioner has already filed representation on 13.03.2015.;