A final notice for eviction under Section 6(2) of the Encroachment Act cannot be issued without prior hearing.

The seven petitioners, residents of Village Jori Kala, challenged final notices dated 03.02.2026 issued by the Circle Officer, Hunterganj.

These notices were purportedly issued under Section 6(2) of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act (the "Encroachment Act") in Encroachment Case No. 02/2025-26, directing the petitioners to remove alleged encroachments.

The petitioners contended that the Circle Officer bypassed the mandatory statutory procedures for notice and hearing.

The High Court summoned the Circle Officer and the case records, whereupon the State’s counsel admitted that the Section 6(2) notice was issued directly without a prior final order.

1. Whether the Circle Officer can directly issue a notice under Section 6(2) of the Encroachment Act without first passing a final order and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

2. Whether the impugned notices dated 03.02.2026 complied with the procedural mandates of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Encroachment Act.

Section 3 requires the initiation of proceedings via a preliminary notice; Section 4 grants the noticee the right to appear and raise a defense; Section 5 mandates a personal hearing; and Section 6 empowers the Collector to pass a final order for removal.

Section 6(2) is a penal and enforcement provision that presupposes the disobedience of a pre-existing final order passed under Section 6; it cannot be invoked as a primary notice.

The Court observed that Section 6(2) serves as a mechanism to punish the disobedience of a final order, not as a starting point for encroachment proceedings.

The Court found that although a proceeding had theoretically been initiated under Section 3, the respondents failed to follow the mandatory sequence: they did not allow the petitioners to fruitfully raise a defense (Section 4) nor did they provide a personal hearing (Section 5).

By jumping directly to an enforcement notice under Section 6(2) without a reasoned final order, the Circle Officer violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory framework of the Encroachment Act.

The Court quashed the notices contained in Memo No. 75 dated 03.02.2026 and directed the Circle Officer to hear the petitioners, consider their defense, and pass a reasoned final order in accordance with the law.