The Appellate Authority Must Decide the Encroachment Appeal Without Insisting on Limitation.

The petitioner challenged the demolition of his house, which he said stood on land occupied by several village families for decades. The Circle Officer had initiated Encroachment Case No. 2/2022-23 concerning land recorded as Gairmajarua; the State asserted that the petitioner had encroached on a public road and was declared an encroacher under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, before the encroachment was removed on 8 November 2023.

The petitioner alleged that he was not given the final order or a copy despite seeking one, and therefore could not appeal. The State disputed this, contending that he had notice and had not applied for a certified copy.

1. Whether the authorities followed the due statutory process before removing the petitioner’s alleged encroachment from public land

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to appeal against the encroachment order without objection on limitation

Under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, the authorities may proceed against encroachment on public land through the statutory process, including the steps contemplated by Sections 6(1) and 6(2). The Court stated that encroachers have no fundamental or equitable right to retain public land, but authorities must follow due statutory process.

It also relied on State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (Dead) through his LRs, (2000) 5 SCC 652, for the requirement of clear and cogent proof of open, hostile and continuous possession to establish adverse possession, particularly over public property, and referred to Shakeel Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(C) No. 6531/2024, for the principle that long occupation or provision of amenities alone does not establish adverse possession against the government.

The Court noted the State’s case that the petitioner had produced no evidence of ownership and had been declared an encroacher under Section 6(1). It also set out the parties’ conflicting positions on notice, the final order, and the request for a certified copy.

Rather than finally determining whether the demolition complied with the statutory process or resolving the competing factual claims, the Court left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. Its discussion of adverse possession underscored that long residence alone would not establish title to public land.

The authority was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law and not to insist on limitation.