Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 5- Circle Officer, Gola (Ramgharh) vide notice of encroachment dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued in Encroachment Case No. 02/2018-19. A further prayer has been made for quashing the notice dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) in the said encroachment case by the respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the construction made over an area of 0.0803 acre out of 1.31 acre in Plot Nos. 302 and 303 under Khata No. 5 of Village-Heramdaga acquired under the Bhairvi Jalasay Yojna.
(2.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased piece of land bearing Plot No. 303, Khata No. 5 and Plot No. 300, Khata No. 60, admeasuring 0.071A acre situated at Mouza-Heramdaga, Thana No. 22, Thana-Gola, District-Hazaribagh, Khewat No. 1, Touji No. 28, from Smt. Vandana Ambasta, wife of Dr. Ajeet Kumar, resident of Gola, P.O.P.S.-Gola, District-Ramgarh vide registered sale-deed dated 16.02001. Thereafter, the petitioner came in possession of the aforesaid plots of land which were encircled with a pucca boundary wall with an iron gate for entrance. The petitioner got the aforesaid land mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No. 72/03-04 dated 24.06.2003 and accordingly, rent receipt was issued to him by the respondent no. 5 for the year 2003-04 on 14.07.2003. It is further submitted that the petitioner received notice issued under the signature of the respondent no. 5 in Encroachment Case No. 02/2018-19, wherein it was mentioned that the aforesaid land possessed by the petitioner is a public land. The petitioner was given a week's time for filing of show-cause reply as to why the structure over the said land be not removed. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the provisions of Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956") submits that in view of the said provision, the Collector under the Act has to provide at least two weeks' time from the date of service of the notice to show-cause. However, despite the mandate of law, the respondent no. 5 passed the order under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 on 15.05.2018 i.e., only after 12 days of issuance of notice dated 03.05.2018 under Section 3 of the Act, 1956. The said action of the respondent no. 5 is completely contrary to law and, therefore, the notice dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is liable to the set-aside.
(3.) Mr. J.F. Toppo, the learned SC (L &C), submits that the respondent no. 5, having found that the land in question is a public land, initiated the proceeding by issuing notice dated 03.05.2018 asking the petitioner to submit the show-cause reply. However, since the petitioner did not submit the same, the order dated 15.05.2018 under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 has been passed and thus, the same does not warrant interference by this Court. ;