4 . Per contra, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the substituted respondent no.5 have opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and have supported the impugned orders passed by the original authority as also the appellate authority. Though, respondents no. 1 to 4 have filed their counter-affidavit controverting the averments made in the writ petition, but admittedly the respondent no. 5 has not filed any counter-affidavit. However, learned State counsel and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5, by referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4 are unanimous in their submissions that after initiating the encroachment proceeding under Section 3 of the Act, 1956, notices were issued to the writ petitioner, but he refused to accept the same. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent D.C.L.R. had no option, but to proceed in the matter ex parte. According to them, once final order was passed by the respondent D.C.L.R. declaring the writ petitioner as encroacher, then the respondent D.C.L.R. had no power to stay his own order by order dated 09.03.1987. Therefore, the respondent no.5, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred Encroachment Appeal No. 11 of 1987 before the respondent District Collector, Gopalganj. It is further contended by them that, in fact, Encroachment Appeal No. 1 of 1987 filed by the writ petitioner and the Encroachment Appeal No. 11 of 1987 preferred by the respondent no.5 were subsequently amalgamated and thereafter final impugned appellate order was passed on 06.01.1999 (Annexure-1) allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 5. It is pleaded by them that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that his encroachment appeal is still pending is not correct. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
