1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.308 of 2009 DEV SHARAN SHARMA @ MISTRI s/o Late Sabbal Mistri. R/o Mohalla Bari Khagaul, P.S.Khagaul, District Patna. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR. Through D.G.P.,Patna. 2.Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 3.Dy.S.P.,Patna. 4.The Officer In-charge, Khagaul P.S.,Patna. ..Respondents. 4 10.08.2009 In this application, petitioner prays for a direction to the Police authorities to help him in construction of boundary wall over petitioner’s land appertaining to plot no. 150 Thana No. 51 Khata No. 11, area 99 decimals under Mauza Shaidpur under Khagaul Police Station on the ground that antisocial elements are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land. The plaintiff has stated that the land is his ancestral land and under Mutation Appeal No. 13 of 1993-94. Petitioner’s name was mutated over the land and he has been issued rent receipt for the same. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case with the averment that Title Suit No. 129 of 2004 is pending between the parties, namely, Saida Nagar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, Khagaul and the petitioner, being defendant no.4 and other defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the land and he is also paying rent on obtaining rent receipts. Further submission is that since his possession is being interfered with by antisocial elements, the petitioner wants to construct boundary wall over the land and this effort of the petitioner is being objected by antisocial elements, hence, he needs Police protection. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that 2 there is dispute of title, including possession between the petitioner/Defendant no.4 and the plaintiff under Title Suit no. 129 of 2004 which involves such dispute between the petitioner/Defendant no.4 as well as other parties claiming such right. It is also submitted that the Title Suit was filed in the year 2004 and now it is at the stage of evidence and evidence of witnesses is being recorded. Learned counsel submitted that interference of this Court in issuing such a direction as prayed for by the petitioner, would be just like an act of interfering with any order of the Sub-Judge Court where such matter is already under consideration and such order of this Court may also be prejudicial to any order passed by such competent court in this regard. It is also submitted that when the matter involving question of title and possession is already being examined by a competent civil court, the petitioner can have the remedy by making an application before the court with a prayer for injuncting any party from interfering with the peaceful possession and title of the petitioner who happens to be Defendant no.4 in the said Title Suit No. 129 of 2004. Thus hearing, I find that when the question relating to title and possession over the land between the parties is already being examined by a competent civil court and the petitioner having scope for taking such remedial measure by making appropriate application before that court, I do not feel it necessity to pass any order, as prayed for in this writ application. Therefore this application is dismissed. Jay/ (C.M. Prasad,J)