IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2716 of 2011 Chandra Bibhuti Agrawal, Son of Late Dr. Shivnandan Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Tajpur, P.S.-Tajpur, District-Samastipur. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Samastipur. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Department, Samastipur. 4. The Block Development Officer, Tajpur Block, P.S.-Tajpur, District- Samastipur. 5. The Circle Officer, Tajpur Circle, P.S.-Tajpur, District-Samastipur. -Respondents. ----------- 03 28.06.2011 By this writ application, the petitioner challenges the order of the Collector, Samastipur as passed in Misc. Case No.29 of 2010. The petitioner had protested against the steps taken by the State to settle a vegetable market for correction of tolls. Petitioner claims ownership in respect of land of about 3.99 acres appertaining to Khata No.404 and Khesara Nos.558 & 559 respectively. When earlier attempts were made to make such settlement petitioner had approached this Court and this Court finding that the Collector had not passed proper order set aside the order of the Collector restraining the respondents from making settlement till fresh orders were passed by the Collector. It is under these circumstances that the order having been passed by the Collector on 04.01.2011 in the aforesaid proceedings. The present writ application has been filed challenging the said order, which is Annexure-9 to the writ application. - 2 - This case was earlier adjourned for the State to file a counter affidavit. In the meantime, I.A. No.4129 of 2011 has been filed for staying the State from making settlements. Having heard the parties, in my view, there is no point in keeping the writ petition or the interlocutory application pending. Having perused the order of the Collector, in my view, the Collector has considered various aspects of the matter and come to a finding that petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land which stand recorded in the State since vesting of Jamindari. Petitioner submits that the Collector has ignored several documents to come to these finding. Be that as it may, the questions of right, title and interest as well as possession are things that ought to be decided in a duly constituted suit by a Civil Court at the first instance. These pleas are based on various evidences which are required to be gone into. If the petitioner is sanguine about his stand that the right, title and interest is of the petitioner and State is illegally encroaching upon that it is always open to the petitioner to move competent Court of civil jurisdiction for necessary reliefs including interim protection by way of injunction which the Court would decide on the basis of materials available before it. The resolution of these disputed questions of title is not decided in this summary proceeding nor advisable. In that view of the matter, petitioner is given liberty to move competent Civil Court, if so advised, for any relief that it seeks which proceed in the matter in accordance with law as this Court has - 3 - not pronounced upon the merits of the matter. The Court would come to its own finding unprejudiced by order of this Court or the order of the Collector which has been impugned in this proceeding. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)