IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.125 of 2008 BHOLA MAHTO SON OF LATE SUKESHWAR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUSULPUR KORIGAON, P.S. GORAUL, P.O. RUSULPUR KORIGAON, DISTRICT VAISHALI….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, GORAUL, DISTRICT VAISHALI 4. VINOD MAHTO SON OF LATE RAJENDRA MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUSULPUR KORIGAON, P.S. GORAUL, P.O. RUSULPUR KORIGAON, DISTRICT VAISHALI….RESPONDENTS ----------- 03/ 04.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned counsel for the Sate and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents authorities not to interfere in the judicial proceeding pending before Civil Court of Appellate Jurisdiction with respect to plot no.5355 appertaining to khata no.365 situated in village Rasulpur Korigaon in the district of Vaishali. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No.577 of 2005 was filed by respondent no.4 against the petitioner for declaration that sale deed of the defendant was illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for declaration of title etc. The said suit was decreed by Civil Judge-VII (Senior Division), Hajipur vide his judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007 (Anexure-1). It is also averred that thereafter petitioner field Title Appeal No.83 of 2007 before learned District Judge, Vaishali which is still pending, but in the meantime the Circle Officer, Goraul (respondent no.3) - 2 - issued notice dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure-4) for measurement of the aforesaid plot which was subject matter of the said appeal, although he had no jurisdiction for delivery of possession of the plot to respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the said order is without any jurisdiction and is absolutely illegal. 4. From a bare perusal of the said notice, it is quite apparent that it is simply for measurement of land and there is no mention of any delivery of possession in favour of respondent no.4. Furthermore, the petitioner should have taken steps with respect thereto before the appellate court for redressal of his grievance and there was no occasion for him to file a writ case in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the appellate court for an interim order as required in law. However, the appellate court is directed to decide the aforesaid title appeal expeditiously, as both the parties to the appeal have already appeared and the appeal is ready for final disposal. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)