IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13453 of 2025 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar Son of Jay Narayan Singh, Resident of Tajpur Road, Dharampur Nistama, Near Professor Colony, Ward No.33, P.S.- Nagar, District- Samastipur at present residing at Kashipur, P.O. Samastipur, P.S.- Nagar, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Samastipur. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Samastipur, District- Samastipur. 4. The Deputy Collector, Revenue and Land Reforms, Samastipur, District- Samastipur. 5. The Circle Officer, Samastipur, District- Samastipur. 6. Raj Kishore Prasad Sharma, Executive Magistrate, Subdivisional Office, District- Samastipur. 7. Md. Anwar Ali, S/o Late Abdul Sattar, Resident of Tajpur Road, Dharampur Nistama, Near Professor Colony, Ward No.33, P.S- Nagar, District- Samastipur. 8. Ramchandra Ram, Son of Late Dayaram Ram, Resident of Tajpur Road, Dharampur Nistama, Near Professor Colony, Ward No. 33, P.S.- Nagar, District- Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rikesh Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC-5 Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 2 25-08-2025 1. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State that the instant writ petition ought to have disposed of after service notice to the Private Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and giving permission to the official Respondents to file counter affidavit. Patna High Court CWJC No.13453 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025 2/4 2. Considering the averments made in the instant writ petition, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of even without serving notice to the Private Respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of three sale-deeds, bearing No. 3562, 3563 and 3564, executed on 21st of March, 1983, the petitioner purchased 14.5 dhur of land in Khata No. 540, Khesra No. 1300 and Thana No. 175. However, after purchase, he got possession of 11 dhurs of land and delivery of possession of remaining 3.5 dhurs of land were in dispute. 4. It is the case of the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, on the other hand, that the Respondent No. 7 purchased 3.5 dhur of land from Respondent No. 8 on 20th of November, 2022. When Respondent No. 7 tried to take over illegal possession of the said 3.5 dhurs of land, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 456 of 2022, which is still pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 5. Now, it is alleged that the official respondents tried to construct boundary wall around the said 3.5 dhurs of Patna High Court CWJC No.13453 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025 3/4 land on 27th of February, 2025, though they do not have any right, title and interest over the property in question. 6. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for commanding upon the Respondent Authorities, prohibiting them from disturbing the petitioner in respect of his purchased land and stay the whole proceeding launched by the Respondents against the petitioner on 27th of February, 2025 and direct the Respondents, not to disturb the petitioner in respect of the land in question. 7. Now, with regard to prayer (ii), it is clearly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that no proceeding was initiated by the Respondents before the Administrative Authority under any of the provisions of land laws against the petitioner. 9. It is needless to say that a Civil Suit is pending, challenging the ownership and title of the Respondent No. 7, which he acquired by virtue of a sale-deed of 2022. Patna High Court CWJC No.13453 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025 4/4 10. Thus, this Court finds that the efficacious relief of the petitioner lies in the Civil Court by filing an application for temporary injunction, restraining the Private Respondent from disturbing his right, title and interest over the said 3.5 dhurs of land or by maintaining status-quo in respect of the nature and character and possession of the property till the disposal of the said suit. Similarly, the State Authority can be restrained by impleading them as parties in the said suit from making any alleged unauthorized construction. The Writ Court does not have any scope to grant any relief in the instant writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in the pending suit. skm/- (Bibek Chaudhuri, J) U