IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22415 of 2011 1. Kashinath Roy S/O Late Viswanath Roy Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 2. Anil Roy S/O Kashinath Roy Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 3. Ran Narayan Tiwary S/O Late Chandra Bhushan Tiwary Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 4. Kamla Singh S/O Late Ram Bachhan Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 5. Ajit Narayan Singh S/O Late Ramayan Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 6. Kamlesh Ram S/O Lalan Ram Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 7. Sobhnath Singh S/O Ram Bachhan Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 8. Baleshwar Singh S/O Late Basudeo Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) ---Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate Rohtas (Sasaram) 2. Land Reform Deputy Collector (Sasaram) Rohtas. ---Respondent 1st set. 3. Umashankar Singh S/O Late Muni Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 4. Harivansh Singh S/O Late Ram Nihora Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 5. Shyam Sunder Singh S/O Radha Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 6. Rantidevi Tiwary S/O Jagarnath Tiwary Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 7. Ram Singh S/O Rampati Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 8. Kesho Singh S/O Ram Pyare Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 9. Vinod Singh S/O Late Ram Gopal Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 10. Baleshwar Singh S/O Gagadhar Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) 11. Malwar Singh S/O Ram Nagina Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) ---Respondent 2nd Set. 12. Chanderhansh Singh S/O Balmuni Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas 13. Vishwamitra Singh S/O Bamuni Singh Resident Of Village- Kuchhila, P.S- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas ---Respondent 3rd set. ---------------------------------- 03 23.12.2011 Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shashi Shekhar, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel no.9 for the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order date 10.10.2011 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms in exercise of power conferred on him under section 5 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 ( for short „ the Act‟). Learned counsel contends that the order is in teeth of provisions contained under Section 4(2) of the Act. According to them, the dispute between the parties and/or vendors was finally resolved by order dated 8.2.08 (Annexure-2) passed by the Director under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. It is next contended that the said order was assailed in this Court by filing CWJC no. 4518 of 2008 ( Uma Shankar Singh & ors. vs. The State of Bihar & ors.) which was disposed of in the following terms:- “What I find that several documents are being relied upon by the parties, claim and counter claims are being made. These matters can be decided only when parties will lead evidence, documents will be proved, exhibited finding would be recorded. Question of title involved in this case cannot be decided by a writ court. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of. Any of the parties who will feel requirement to get their title decided, with respect to the disputed land, will approach to the civil court of competent jurisdiction to get the right, title and possession decided over the disputed lands.” Learned counsel further submitted that in accord with the observation made by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition the respondent 2nd set have already filed a suit bearing Title Suit no. 691 of 2010 (Annexure-4) which is pending consideration. In the backdrop of these facts the respondent 2nd set invoked jurisdiction of the respondent -DCLR under the Act which was entertained and an order of restraint was passed. In the submission of the petitioners the order is contrary to the provision of the Act. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Act itself provides a remedy in terms of Section 14 of the Act which reads as under:- “14. Appeal before the Commissioner- (1) Any party aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority may file an appeal before the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the order has been passed, within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. Provided that the Commissioner may receive and dispose off the appeal beyond the period of thirty days by extending it by another thirty days if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within thirty days. (2) On receipt of appeal, the Commissioner shall immediately cause notice to be issued to the contesting parties allowing 15 days time for appearance and submit reply to the appeal, if any. (3) The Commissioner shall thereafter proceed to hear the appeal and may pass such order allowing, modifying, reversing or affirming the order passed by the Competent Authority as he may deem fit in accordance with law. (4) The order passed by the Commissioner shall be final and no further appeal or revision shall lie before any other authority.” I have heard the parties. It appears the Act itself provides a remedy to the petitioners by filing appeal against the order impugned (Annexure-8). Taking that aspect into consideration this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order. Let the petitioners file an appeal before the appropriate authority under the Act assailing the order in question. This Court, however, considering the submissions of the petitioners and also keeping in view the fact that a Title Suit between the parties is already pending is inclined to stay the operation of the order contained in Annexure-8 for a period of 05 weeks from today. Let the petitioners in the meanwhile approach the appellate authority under the Act assailing the order contained in Annexure-8. It will be open to the petitioners to seek condonation of delay, if any, in filing the appeal which shall be considered in accordance with law. Petitioners would also be at liberty to seek any interim relief from the appellate Court as deemed necessary in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)