IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4245 of 2006 RAN VIJAY KUMAR @ RAN VIJAY SINGH @ RAN VIJAY KUMAR YADAV, SON OF BABU RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KASAUTI TOLA- JAG MOHAN BIGHA, P.S.- KARPI, DISTRICT- ARWAL :---PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, DAUDNAGAR, AURANGABAD. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DAUDNAGAR, AURANGABAD. 5. RAMDEO YADAV, SON OF RAGHU YADAV. 6. DHARMDAS YADAV, SON OF RAMDEO YADAV. 7. LALDAS YADAV, SON OF RAMDEO YADAV. 8. UMESH YADAV, SON OF SHAHDEO YADAV. 9. GHURA YADAV, SON OF MAHESH YADAV. RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- AKORHA, TOLA- UMARHAK, P.S.- DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD :--RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 09.03.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daud Nagar in Case No. 1297 of 2004, Annexure-5, whereunder learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused the request of the petitioner to put him in possession of the lands-in-question on the basis of the sale-deed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of the impugned order dated 19.11.2005, Annexure-5 it will appear that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and the private respondents but no such suit is pending. Civil Suit between the petitioner and the private respondents may not have pending but Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not have any jurisdiction to put the purchaser in possession of the purchased plot. It is submitted by the counsel for - 2 - the petitioner that when petitioner made attempts to raise the boundary wall over the purchased plot objection was raised by private respondent nos. 5-9 as there is land dispute between private respondent nos. 5-9 and the vendor of the petitioner. 4. There may not be direct litigation between the petitioner and the private respondents but when there is civil suit pending between the private respondent and the vendor of the petitioner about the lands-in-question then in my opinion the Sub- Divisional Magistrate rightly refused to initiate any proceeding in the light of the request of the petitioner and passed the impugned order. This writ petition, however, is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file civil suit against the private respondents for declaration of his title and possession over the lands-in-question. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)