IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13956 of 2008 Maheshwar Prasad Gupta, S/o. Chandeshwar Prasad Gupta a resident of the Villatge-Basopatti, P.O. + P.S. Basopatti, Distt. Madhubani. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, old Secretariat Patna. 2. The District Magistrate Madhubani. 3. The Superintendent of Police Madhubani. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jainpur, District- Madhubani. 5. The Circle Officer Basopatti, P.O. + P.S. Basopatti, Distt. Madhubani. 6. The officer-in-Charge, Basopatti, P.S., Distt. Madhubani. 7. Kushe Mahto, S/o. Ganni Mahto, 8. Om Prakashy Mahto, S/o. Ramswaroop Mahto, 9. Baijnath Mahto, S/o. Chhedi Mahto, P.R. No.7 to 9 are the resident of the village Basopatti, P.O. + P.S. Basopatti, Distt. Madhubani. 10. Md. Lalan @ Arshad Kamal, 11. Md. Lalan @ Hassan Afroz, 12. Khurshid Alam, All respondent nos. 10 to 12 are the sons of late Md. Israil a resident of village Basopatti, P.O. + P.S. Basopatti, District- Madhubani. At present residing at Madhopur, P.O. Muzaffarpur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur. ---------------------------------- 06. 26.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 9. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 were tenant to respondent Nos. 10 to 11. An eviction suit bearing Title Eviction Suit No. 3 of 1990 was filed, which was decreed in favour of the landlord. The judgment and decree was delivered on 31.01.1996 and delivery of possession was affected in the suit on 24.06.2006. 2 In the meantime the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 filed Title Suit No. 33 of 2006 in which they have claimed title over the land subject matter of the eviction suit. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land which is subject matter of both the suits. Thereafter the petitioner, through his purchaser-in- interest, got possession of the said lands. It is admitted fact that respondent Nos.7 to 9 re-entered on the land and have put some sand and bricks on the said land which has led to the present dispute. The case of respondent Nos.7 to 9 is that they are in possession of the land in question since last 30 years. They claim title on the ground that they had applied for issuance of basgit purcha in respect of the land in question. The State has filed an affidavit and has come with the plea that the land which was the subject matter of dispute in Title Suit No. 33 of 2006 and in Title Suit No.3 of 1990 are Gairmarzua land and as such both the parties have no right on the land in question consequently the sale-deed is of no help to the party claiming title on the land. However, State has not filed any suit for eviction either against the petitioner or the respondents in this case. It would be relevant to mention her that respondent Nos. 7 to 9 filed an application to stay the delivery of possession in Execution Case No. 5 of 1996, which was 3 rejected by the Munsif –II, Madhubani. Thereafter a Civil Revision No. 647 of 2007 was filed in this Court challenging the order rejecting the application under Order XXI Rule-29. In the said Civil Revision Application the plea taken on behalf of respondent Nos.7 to 9 was that title suit has been filed by them and as such actual delivery of possession of the Title Suit ought not be given to respondent Nos.10 to 12. This Court found no reason to interfere with the aforesaid order and as such the Civil Revision was dismissed. In the facts aforesaid, this Court finds that a delivery of possession has been effected and as such the orders of the Court have to be respected. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 cannot forcibly enter or prevent the decree holders from entering upon the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Judgment of Uma Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2007(2) P.L.J.R. 474. The facts of the case indicate that the petitioner Uma Devi had purchased a piece of property from the vendor Swarna Kaur. An eviction suit was filed which came to be decreed and executed. After execution of the decree some anti social elements at the instance of the judgment debtor apparently tried to disturb the possession of Uma Devi. In that context the Court held that it is the right of a citizen to enjoy his or her property unfettered by interference, in accordance with law. 4 Considering all aspects, the petitioner may approach respondent Nos.2 to 3 for protection, if in case he is not permitted to enter the land. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Mkr. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)