IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.624 of 2008 Manoj Kumar, Son of Ram Bilash Rai, resident of village-Mirjanagar, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. 2. North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur through its Secretary. 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The Additional Collector, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 5. Sheo Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Baldeo Singh, resident of village-Mahua, Singhrai, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. … … Respondents ….Respondents 6. Binod Ram, son of Sri Sakaldeep Ram, Resident of village- Alipur, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. 7. Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Baldeo Singh, resident of village-Mahua Singhrai, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. 8. Bipin Kumar, S/o Sri Raj Ballabh Singh, resident of village- Sahbajpur Puraina, P.S. Patepur, District-Vaishali. …… Intervenor- Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samrendra, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate For the respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Navendu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jagnnath Singh, junior counsel to Government Pleader-IX -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 04th December, 2008 The senior counsel for the appellant does not dispute that a civil suit between the appellant (lessee) and Urmila Devi (lessor) - 2 - concerning the land offered by the appellant is pending. He also does not dispute that an order of status quo passed by the Civil Court is operative. In this situation, we wanted to know from the senior counsel as to how any shed or construction for bus stand can be raised by the appellant on the subject land. He is fair enough in submitting that so long, order of status quo is operative, it is not possible to do so. In that situation, the cancellation of the settlement which was initially made in favour of the appellant cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity as it seems to be in public interest. 2. L.P.A. is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil