4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition as well as the provisions of the Act, 1956. On perusal of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, 1956, it would be evidently clear that pursuant to issuance of notice to the alleged encroacher on a public land, the Collector, under the Act, 1956, has to make factual determination of the factum of encroachment after consideration of the show cause reply submitted by the alleged encroacher. After making such factual determination, an order under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1956 has to be passed by the Collector. The petitioner has brought on record supported by averments in the writ petition that pursuant to the notices issued to the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act, 1956, replies were submitted on two different occasions before the respondent no.5, however, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or passing any order under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1956, the respondent no. 5 has issued the notice under Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 directing her to remove the encroachment from Plot no. 1112. The said action of the respondent no. 5 appears to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1956.
