2025:JHHC:20467 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2688 of 2025 ----- 1. Suleman Lakra, son of Lohana Lakra, R/o Village- Sarnatoli, P.O.-Netarhat, P.S.-Netarhat, District-Latehar 2. Ashamuni Lakra, wife of Suleman Lakra, R/o Village- Sarnatoli, P.O.-Netarhat, P.S.-Netarhat, District-Latehar .......... Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Commissioner, Palamu Division, Palamu 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mahuadanr, Netarhat 5. The Circle Officer, Mahuadanr, Netarhat .......... Respondents ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-III ----- Order No.02 Date: 25.07.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned notices dated 22.02.2025 and 15.04.2025 issued by the respondent no. 5- Circle Officer, Mahuadanr, Netarhat in the name of petitioner no. 1 under Section 3 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1956”) in Land Encroachment Case No. 66 of 2024-25, which according to the petitioners, are arbitrarily and illegally issued as land in question is raiyati in nature over which they have constructed residential house. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 2 purchased 0.30 acres land appertaining to Old Khata No. 42, Old Plot No. 1125, corresponding to 2025:JHHC:20467 2 New Khata No. 23, New Plot No. 1456, belonging to Mauja-Netarhat, Mauja No. 51, Thana No. 81, Khevat No. 1, Halka No. 8 from Sengta Kisan and Khedan Kisan. 3. After purchase of the said land, the petitioners got it demarcated vide Demarcation Case No. 20 of 2012-13 and since then they have been in peaceful possession of the same. 4. Despite the said fact, the notices dated 22.02.2025 and 15.04.2025 mentioning Khata No. 181, Plot No. 1443 have been issued by the respondent no. 5 to the petitioner no. 1 calling upon him as to why the alleged encroachment made over the said land to the extent of 68x146 square feet be not removed under the provisions of the Act, 1956. 5. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 5 has the misconception that the petitioners’ house has been constructed over the government land, whereas, their house is constructed over khatiyani land which has been duly purchased by the petitioner no. 2. 6. It is also submitted that since the land over which the petitioners’ house is constructed cannot be said to be public land, the proceeding initiated under the provisions of Act, 1956 is completely illegal. Under the said circumstance, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 2025:JHHC:20467 3 7. Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned S.C. (L&C)-III, appearing on behalf of the State, submits that if the petitioners claim raiyati right over the land in question, they should have filed their defence towards the impugned notices issued by the respondent no. 5. However, they have preferred the writ petition without responding to the impugned notices. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the impugned notices dated 22.02.2025 and 15.04.2025 have been issued by the respondent no. 5 under Section 3 of the Act, 1956. Since the petitioners have not yet responded to the said notices, they are directed to file reply/defence before the respondent no. 5 by 11.08.2025. On receipt of the said reply/defence, the respondent no. 5 shall pass appropriate order following the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1956 within four weeks thereafter. 9. The respondent no. 5 shall neither interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the land in question nor shall demolish any structure standing over it till disposal of Land Encroachment Case No. 66 of 2024-25. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas/