Appellate authorities must consider bona fide title claims before enforcing public-land encroachment removal.

The petitioner challenged the Circle Officer’s order dated 17 May 2017 directing removal of alleged encroachments over public land comprised in Plot Nos. 1020, 1022 and 1023, Village Kudarbadha, P.S. Garkha, District Saran.

He claimed that the land had been settled in favour of his grandfather through a patta granted by the erstwhile landlord in 1924, and that his family had remained in possession and constructed a residential house thereon for nearly a century.

The petitioner alleged that no valid notice or opportunity of hearing was provided before the measurement of the land or the passing of the removal order.

The State maintained that notice had been served and that the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing in encroachment case No. 115 of 2014–15, initiated under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

The proceedings followed a spot inquiry and measurement by the Anchal Amin, who reported encroachment over a village road situated on Plot Nos. 1020 and 1023.

The petitioner had submitted a reply on 5 May 2017, after which the Circle Officer passed the final order under Section 6(1) of the Act on 17 May 2017.

Respondent No. 5 relied on an earlier order in CWJC No. 18164 of 2015, in which the High Court had directed conclusion of the encroachment proceedings after hearing the concerned parties, including the present petitioner.

The petitioner had not impleaded Respondent No. 5 when the present writ petition was initially filed, although the earlier writ proceedings had been disclosed in the petition.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, particularly in view of the alleged violation of natural justice and the petitioner’s title claim?

Whether the petitioner’s claim based on the alleged 1924 patta, rent receipts, possession and construction of a residential house required consideration by the appellate authority before the encroachment order could be conclusively implemented?

Whether the petitioner had suppressed material facts or obtained interim protection unfairly by failing initially to implead Respondent No. 5?

The Court applied Sections 6(1) and 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956: a final encroachment order may be passed under Section 6(1), while an aggrieved person has a statutory right of appeal under Section 11.

The Court recognised the general rule that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may ordinarily be declined where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, but that issues involving jurisdiction, natural justice or substantial title claims may justify judicial intervention or appropriate directions.

It referred to the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata discussed in Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), (1986) 1 SCC 100.

It referred to the requirement that a writ petitioner approach the Court with clean hands under K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481.

It referred to the pleading and proof requirements stated in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534.

The appellate authority was directed to consider title-related issues in accordance with Asharfi Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2026 (5) PLJR 211.

The Court found that the allegation that the petitioner had concealed the earlier proceedings was only partially sustainable because he had annexed the order in CWJC No. 18164 of 2015 and referred to it in the writ petition.

The record also indicated that the petitioner had participated in the encroachment proceedings by filing a reply, weakening the absolute allegation that he had been denied an opportunity of hearing.

Nevertheless, the Court considered the petitioner’s asserted 1924 settlement, longstanding possession and residential occupation to be material issues requiring adjudication and not matters that could simply be ignored in the encroachment proceedings.

Without setting aside the Circle Officer’s order, the Court preserved the petitioner’s statutory appellate remedy and directed the appellate authority to examine the alleged patta or settlement, rent receipts, possession documents and the petitioner’s occupation of the residential house.

The Court further held that, if the documents did not establish a valid settlement, the petitioner would have to seek a declaration from a competent civil court; conversely, if valid settlement and possession were established, the State would have to take appropriate steps to exclude the land from the operation of the Encroachment Act in accordance with Asharfi Yadav.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 11 before the Commissioner within four weeks, with any delay condoned.

The appellate authority was directed to hear all concerned parties, including Respondent No. 5, and conclude the proceedings within three months of filing the appeal.

Although the interim stay was not continued because Respondent No. 5 had initially not been impleaded, the appellate authority was directed not to dispossess the petitioner and his family from the residential house until final adjudication of the matter.