IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6792 of 2006 SAH DEO SAH, Son of Late Nathuni Sah, Resident of Village- Kaswe Madhubani, Police Station-Madhubani, District- Madhubani. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Collector, Madhubani 3. The Additional Collector, Madhubani. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhubani. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Madhubani. 6. The Circle Officer, Rahika, Madhubani. . . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 4/ 10.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing Memo no. 132 dated 02.03.2006, contained in Annexure- 6, whereby Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent no.5, has asked the petitioner to furnish show cause with regard to alleged encroachment of lands in question. He further prays for restraining the respondents from making any illegal construction thereon. The petitioner states that he is the owner of Khesara no. 278 and 291 measuring 2 Kathas and 16 dhurs and 2 Kathas and 4 dhurs of Mauza Rakbe Chakdah in the District of Madhubani. A land encroachment proceeding being Encroachment Case no. 31 of 1982-83 was initiated. In the aforesaid proceeding, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani held that petitioner has not encroached any public land, a copy of order dated 23.03.1983 is annexed as Annexure-1. As the respondents threatened demolishing, C.W.J.C. No. 1991 of 1983 was filed, in which the High Court by order dated 09.05.1983 had restrained the respondents from demolishing the house of the petitioner, as 2 interim measure. Again a show cause notice has been asked by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 07.03.2006. It would appear from Annexure 3, the order of this Court that State filed an appeal against the order of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms bearing Encroachment Case no. 31 of 1982-83. The High Court disposed of the writ application on 02.11.1983 & observed that till the decision in appeal, the authorities would forbear from taking any step in relation to the land and house in question. The High Court further observed that only if the state succeeds that there has been an encroachment over a public land it can take action in accordance with law. It appears that the appeal filed by the State was allowed and the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms was set aside. It would further appear that a Title suit no. 31 of 1987 has been filed by the petitioner for declaration of title in which respondents are also defendants. In views of the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the show-cause notice dated 02.03.2006 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sadar) Madhubani. However, it will be open to the petitioner to seek remedy available under the law including filing of injunction petition in the title suit itself. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)