IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12602 of 2003 Ram Kawal Singh, son of Late Radha Kishun Singh, resident of village Semra, P.S. and Anchal Bhabhua, District- Kaimoor ………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Collector, Kaimoor at Bhabhua 3.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaimoor (Bhabhua) 4.The Circle Officer, Bhabhua, District- Kaimoor 5.The Officer Incharge, Sonhan (Bhabhua), District- Kaimoor 6.Rajaram Mishra 7.Madan Deo Mishra 8.Rajeshwar Mishra 9.Radheshyam Mishra 10.Kameshwar Mishra 11.Balmiki Mishra, All sons of Late Rupandeo Mishra, all are resident of village Semra, P.S.- Sonhar (Bhabhua), District- Kaimoor, Bhabhua ………… Respondents. ----------- 7. 29/06/2010 Petitioner, who is a member of public, is aggrieved by non-implementation of order dated 27.9.1993/4.10.1993 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhabua in Encroachment Appeal No.18 of 1992-93. By the said order, appeal of the respondents was dismissed and Circle Officer, Bhabua was directed to get the land of plot no.200 measured and made free from encroachment by the respondents, failing which he was directed to take steps for removal of encroachments in accordance with section 6(2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. The said order has not been complied with by the Circle Officer. Petitioner has moved this Court in 2003, i.e. after ten years. - 2 - Respondents State authorities have filed counter affidavit in the case. Their stand is that private respondents have filed Title Suit No.223 of 2004 against the State authorities challenging the said order and for declaration of their title to the land in question. In the title suit, learned Munsif by his order dated 29.10.2004 has passed orders for maintaining status quo till filing of the show cause by the defendants. From the record, it does not appear as to whether show cause has been filed in the suit by the official respondents or not and as to what happened thereafter. However, since substantive suit has been filed by the private respondents in respect of the title of the land in question, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ application in respect of the said dispute. Petitioner, who is a member of public, if so chooses, may intervene in the suit in accordance with law. So far as this writ application is concerned, the same is dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)