IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13776 of 2009 Dr.Brahma Nand Jha Suman @B.Jha Suman, Son of late Shiva Kinkar Jha, Resident of Ward No. 14, Jaypal Patti Chowk, Nagar Parishad, Madhepura, PS & District Madhepura. ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Madhepura. 5. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Madhepura, District Madhepura. 6. Jawahar Prasad Singh, Son of Late Rameshwar Singh, Ward No. 14, Jaypal Patti Chowk, Nagar Parsishad, Madhepura, District Madhepura. ----- Respondents. ----------- 3 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6. This writ application has been filed for a direction that respondent no. 6 should not contravene the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and construct any part of his house more than what is prescribed under the Corporation’s rules and regulations. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he had purchased a piece of land in the year 1980 and constructed his house. The respondent no. 6 had purchased a land adjacent to the house of the petitioner in the year 1990 and has similarly constructed his ground floor and is in the process of constructing his first floor. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 6 is extending his 2 construction over more than the portion of the land that he had purchased and thereby is contravening the provisions of the Municipal Act. It would appear on perusal of the materials produced before this Court that the petitioner has filed a Title Suit 175 of 2009 for a declaration of title and possession over the suit land which is the subject matter of the writ application and to declare the revisional survey entry in respect of the suit land as prescribed in schedule of the plaint to be null and void. At paragraph 8 of the plaint it has specifically been stated that “as per Khatiyan area M.S. Plot No. 341/551 is two katha but its area as per M.S. Map is only 1 Katha 18 dhurs as two dhurs purchased land of plaintiff as five karee North-South 17 Kari land East West total 85 squire kari land of plaintiff amalgamated in M.S. Plot No. 358 and 5 kati lan North South and 41 kari land wast west total area 205quire amalgamated in M.S. Plot No. 356/544 and plaintiff’s land south East North- South total 145 squire Kari land amalgamated in M.S. Plot No. 341, in M.S. Map but plaintiff is coming in possession of 2 3 Katha of land as per their purchase including 2 dhurs above plaintiff’s amalgamated land if M.S. Plot No. 358, 356/544, 341.” In view of the statements made in the plaint it is apparently clear that although the petitioner has purchased 2 kathas, measurement according to the map indicates that it was 2 kathas and 18 dhurs. There has to be a declaration by the Court as to whether the vendor of the petitioner and the vendor of the respondent had a title over their respective 2 kathas of land and whether there is a need to make correction in R.S. map. In the circumstances, at this stage, this writ Court cannot enter into these disputed facts nor can the Municipal Corporation adjudicate in this matter as it can only be decided by the competent Court where the title suit is pending. In the circumstances aforesaid, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)