IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.478 of 2009 Dadan Tiwary s/o late Ganesh Datta Tiwary, r/o Ganesh Bhawan, Mohalla – Sidhauli, Dalmianagar, P.S. Dehri, District – Rohtas, at present Tiwary Engineering, Digha, Patna ……… Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Rohtas 3. The D.C.L.R. , Dehri, Rohtas 4. The Anchaladhikari, Dehri, Rohtas 5. Ramjee Tiwary 6. Lallan Tiwary, both sons of late Ganesh Datt Tiwary 7. Meena Devi w/o Lallan Tiwary 8. Chandrama Tiwary alias Chandrama Devi 9. Shabya Devi , all residents of Ganesh Bhawan, Mohalla – Sidhauli, Dalmianagar, P.S. Dehri, District – Rohtas, ……. Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Vidya Sagar Mr. Samir Kumar Ranjan, Advocates For the respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC XV Mr.Bipin kumar, AC to SC XV 4 2/9/2009 Heard Mr. Vidya Sagar, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. The present appellant had filed CWJC. No.6509 of 2007, challenging the orders of the Circle Officer, the appellate authority and the revisional authority. All those authorities have observed that in view of various disputes between the appellant and the respondent nos.5 to 9, the matter can better be agitated 2 before the Civil Court. Learned single judge while noticing the above aspect dismissed the writ petition and observed that since a suit is already pending in the competent court of jurisdiction the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his remedy in the Civil Court. From the submissions made at the Bar, it is apparent that the present respondent nos. 5 to 9 filed a Title Suit no.398 of 2000, which is still pending before the Sub-Judge – VI, Sasaram. The said title suit is stated to be based on claim of title made by the present respondent nos. 5 to 9. It is not in dispute that the present appellant has filed written statement therein claiming that the respondents are not entitled in respect of the property in question. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned single judge observing that the present appellant can pursue his remedy before the concerned Civil Court. The counsel for the appellant has stated that Zamabandi which was recorded in his name in the year 3 1966 should not have been cancelled in the year 1999. However, since all the disputes are to be decided by the Civil Court it is not necessary for us to go into this question. It is made clear that in the pending suit all questions can be raised and decided on their own merits without being prejudiced by the fact that Zamabandi made against the appellant has been subsequently cancelled and thereafter has been prepared in the name of the present respondent nos. 5 to 9. The letters patent appeal is disposed of with the above observation. No order as to cost. Neyaz/ (P.K.Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)