Summary encroachment proceedings cannot evict occupants while bona fide title disputes await civil adjudication.

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 8 December 2023 issued by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga, directing removal of his alleged encroachment over Khesra No. 865 in Encroachment Case No. 3/2014-15.

He claimed that his family had acquired and occupied the disputed property under registered sale deeds, and that the land was subject to a bona fide title dispute.

A civil suit filed by the petitioner, Title Suit No. 445 of 2019, seeking a declaration concerning the alleged encroachment, remained pending; the State had appeared and filed a written statement.

The State relied on a 2019 joint measurement report identifying the petitioner as an encroacher and maintained that the land formed part of Gangasagar Pokhar.

The petitioner sought quashing of the notice and protection from eviction pending the suit.

1. Whether the authorities could proceed under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, to remove the petitioner while a civil suit involving a bona fide dispute of title to the land was pending.

2. Whether the notice dated 8 December 2023 should be quashed and the petitioner protected from eviction until the title suit was decided.

The Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 provides a summary procedure for removing unauthorised occupants from public land, but it is not a mechanism for deciding complicated questions of title.

In Smt. Uma Devi Sinha v. State of Bihar, 2001 (2) PLJR 587, the Court held that where a serious question of title arises, the State must obtain a declaration of its right from a competent civil court before evicting the occupant through summary proceedings under the Act.

The same principle was reiterated in Shaila Devi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., Misc. Appeal No. 318 of 2014: a bona fide title dispute cannot be resolved through the Act’s summary process.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s title suit concerning the disputed land was pending before the civil court.

Applying the principles in Uma Devi Sinha and Shaila Devi, it held that the summary encroachment process could not determine the competing claims of title.

Because the dispute required adjudication by the competent civil court, the authorities could not use the Act to evict the petitioner while that adjudication remained pending.

It quashed the notice and directed the authorities not to evict the petitioner until disposal of Title Suit No. 445 of 2019.

The writ petition was allowed.