2026:JHHC:16937 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4027 of 2022 ------ 1. Gomati Pandey, son of Ambika Pandey. 2. Nagendra Ram, son of Late Murari Ram. 3. Vikramaditya Pandey, son of Late Basant Pandey. 4. Mahendra Pandey, son of Late Nirbhayantu Pandey. 5. Vijay Prasad Keshri, son of Chhathu Saw. 6. Devendra Kumar Pandey, son of Late Ramadhar Pandey. 7. Rajnish Kashyap, son of Dinesh Kashyap. 8. Dilip Kumar Pandey, son of Arun Kumar Pandey. 9. Shyam Narayan Prasad Keshri, son of Late Dwarika Prasad Keshri. 10. Sanjay Pandey, son of Shesmani Pandey. 11. Bir Mani Pandey, son of Late Uday Nath Pandey. All resident of Pandu, P.O. & P.S. Pandu, District Palamau. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Palamau, District Palamau. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, P.O. & P.S. Palamau, District Palamu. 4 The Circle Officer, Sadar, P.O. & P.S. Palamau, District Palamau. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV ------ 12/ 11.06.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- “(a) Quashing the notice dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure-12) whereby and whereunder the petitioner no.5 was noticed and directed to remove the encroachment over Khata No.310 Plot No.324, Gairmazarua Aam Land within 24 hours or else legal action will be taken against the petitioner no.5 and the expenses for removal of the encroachment will be recovered from the petitioners. AND 2026:JHHC:16937 2 The petitioners further pray for stay of the execution of the encroachment drive during pendency of the writ application as the same has been passed violating the Principles of natural justice and also on the basis of pick and choose policy.” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that by issuing the impugned notice, the respondents have directed the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment. He takes several other grounds. 4. After going through the petition and the argument, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed with a direction to the respondents to issue individual notice to all the petitioners giving details of the land which according to the respondents have been encroached by the petitioners, as except petitioner No.5, no notice has been issued to others. Once the said notice is issued, the respondents will follow the procedure of law and after giving an opportunity of hearing, will pass an appropriate order under the “Bihar (now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act”, and then only an appropriate action can be taken against the encroachers. 5. So far as petitioner No.5 is concerned, a fresh notice be issued to him also. It is made clear that the petitioners once receive the notices, should appear before the Authorities and place their defence by filing their show cause, which will be considered as per law and an appropriate order will be passed. 2026:JHHC:16937 3 6. It is made clear that without following the procedure of law, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the land in question. It is expected that the respondents will expedite the matter. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 11th June, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 15.06.2026