2026:JHHC:25804 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5947 of 2026 ---- Dileep Kumar @ Dileep Kumar Yadav, son of late Vijay Yadav, resident of Ward No. 2, village Jarga, P.O Gujhandi, P.S. Koderma, District- Koderma, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, Jharkhand. 3. The Circle Officer-cum-Collector, Land Encroachment, Koderma, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sahil, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC Mines-III ------ 03/27.08.2026 Heard the parties. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Notice/Final Order under Section 6(2) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act in BPLE Case No. 06/2025-26 dated 9.6.2026 issued under the signature of Circle officer-cum-Collector, Land Encroachment, Koderma (Annexure-5), whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment by 25.6.2026 situated over Mouza Hathuvadharan, Thana No. 239, comprise within Khata No. 11, Plot No. 96/183 total area 4.71 acres out of which 1.20 decimals has been declared to be encroached area. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that without hearing the petitioner, notice issued under Section 6(2) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act in BPLE Case No. 06/2025-26 has been issued directing the petitioner to remove the structure. He submits that without following the principle of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed. 4. On the last date, this Court directed the Circle Officer-cum- Collector, Koderma to produce the entire original record of BPLE Case No. 6/2025-26 to ensure as to whether the petitioner was heard or not. 5. Today, the file has been produced and it has been submitted that initially notice was issued to the petitioner to produce all documents, but the petitioner did not appear, thus respondents were forced to pass the final order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received any notice earlier, thus the petitioner could not appear. 7. After going through the entire record, I find that the proceeding was initiated in BPLE Case No. 06/2025-26 on 23.3.2026 and notice was issued on that day fixing the date on 7.4.2026. On 7.4.2026, the petitioner appeared before the authority and prayed for fifteen days’ time to produce the records. As the Presiding Officer was supposed to appear in a case before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, this case was adjourned for 22.4.2026. On 22.4.2026, a final order was passed in this case directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment, thereafter the impugned notice under Section 6(2) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act was issued. 8. After going through the order sheet, I find the procedural flaws in this case. When this case was fixed on 7.4.2026, admittedly the Presiding Officer was not present. If he was not present, it is surprising how he signed on the order dated 7.4.2026. On 7.4.2026, the petitioner prayed for fifteen days’ time to file the documents. Since the Presiding Officer was not there, no one could have granted fifteen days’ time. There is nothing in the order dated 7.4.2026 that the Presiding Officer granted any time to the petitioner to file the documents. When the case was fixed on 22.4.2026, the entire order was passed against the petitioner. 9. I also find that the petitioner was not present and heard on 22.4.2026 and in his absence, the order was passed. Thus, the order dated 22.4.2026 has been passed violating the principle of natural justice. In that view, the order dated 22.4.2024 is set aside. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 6(2) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act is also set aside and BPLE Case No. 06/2025-26 is revived. 10. The matter is remanded to the Circle Officer-cum-Collector, Land Encroachment, Koderma (respondent No. 3). The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 3 within two weeks along with a copy of this order and his reply along with all documents. Once the same is filed, respondent No. 3 will try to dispose of the encroachment case as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. If the petitioner does cooperate in the disposal of the said encroachment case, the Presiding Officer will proceed ex parte and pass the final order in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 27th August, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/- Cp2. Uploaded on: 28/08/2026. 2.