IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11825 OF 2010 BAIJNATH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM NAGINA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIHARPUR LALGARH, POLICE STATION GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, DISTRICT SIWAN ………………………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, SIWAN 2. THE COLLECTOR, SIWAN 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SIWAN 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, SIWAN 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BARHARIA ANCHA, POLICE STATION BARHARIA, DISTRICT SIWAN 6. BIJAY SINGH, SON OF KAMALDEO SINGH 7. ASHOK SINGH, SON OF KAMALDEO SINGH 8. RAJ NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF RAMDEO SINGH 9. HARI NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF RAMDEO SINGH 10. SHANTI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RANJIT SINGH 11. SANJEEV SINGH, SON OF LATE RANJIT SINGH 12. RAJEEV SINGH, SON OF LATE RANJIT SINGH 13. JITENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE BALDEO SINGH 6 TO 13 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIHARPUR LALGARH, POLICE STATION GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, DISTRICT SIWAN …………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ********* 2 28/07/2010 Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in paragraph 4 of this application. The petitioner has challenged the order passed in Title Suit No. 456 of 2008 dated 17.04.2010 which is an order of status quo in the suit. The respondent Raj Narayan Singh has filed Title Suit No. 456 of 2008 claiming that part of the land which has been settled in favour of the petitioner treating it to be the land of the State of Bihar actually belongs to him. The exact pleadings of the parties are not very essential. The fact remains that the plaintiff in the suit is 2 claiming title over the suit property. This Court cannot go into the merits of the order of the status quo granted by the Court nor can it hold that the suit is not maintainable as these questions have to be addressed by the Court who is in seisin of the suit. The submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner that the suit will be barred by the provisions of the Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, has to be rejected on the ground that unless a title of a party is decided, the order of the Collector settling or granting purcha for the lands treating them to belong to the State cannot be set aside. This writ application is thus not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the issues in the suit. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )