IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8426 of 1994 1. SUDHIR KUMAR JHA 2.Pradip Kumar Jha, both sons of late Bindhya Nath Jha, residents of Town, P.S. & District Madhepura…..Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector-cum-Disitrict Magistrate, Saharsa 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, SAharsa 5. The Block Development Officer, Saur Bazar, District Saharsa 6. The Circle Officer, Saur Bazar Circle, District Saharsa 7. Mahadeo Sada son of Mahavir Sada. 8. Phuleshwari Devi W/o Runi Sada 9. Barik Sada son of Bhumi Sada 10. Sochit Sada son of Bhumi Sada 11. Chandra Kishor Sada son of Bhumi Sada 12. Adhni Devi W/o Janardan Sada 13. Yogendra Sada son of Chhottan Sada 14. Arjun Sada son of Bhumi Sada 15. Stri Lal Sada son of Fani Sada 16. Sumitra Devi W/o Janardan Sada 17. Lalan Sada son of Gholtan Sada 18. Chauthi Sada son of Yogendra Sada, all residents of village Gamharia Tola Harkulta, P.S. Saurbazar, District Saharsa 19. Chandeshwari Sada son of Shibu Sada 20. Bateshwar Sada son of Mangal Sada 21. Kari Sada son of Bihari Sada 22. Laxmi Sada son of Sukrati Sada 23. Jaman Sada son of Mangal Sada 24. Ojahu Sada son of Mangal Sada 25. Lutan Sada son of Gorelal Sada 26. Sito Sada son of Mangal Sada 27. Choti Sada son of Yogendra Sada 28. Bednath Sada son of Yogendra Sada 29. Barhudeo Sada son of Asarphi Sada 30. Ramdeo Sada son of Asarphi Sada 31. Bindo Sada son of Phaga Sada 32. Bahadur Sada son of Jageshwar Sada 33. Jugal Sada son of Ram Kishun Sada 34. Subodh Sada son of Achha Sada 35. Chandra Sada son of Ramdhin Sada 36. Jago Sada son of Ramadhin Sadha 37. Lattu Sada son of Bhola Sada 38. Radhay Shyam Sada sopn of Aghunu Sada. All resident of village Gamharia Tola Harkulta P.S. Saurbazar District Saharsa ……Respondents. 2 ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anshuman Singh, A.C to A.A.G-1. ---------- 14. 26.04.2011 Heard Mr. Rajeev Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned A.C. to A.A.G-1 appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6. Despite valid service of notice upon private respondent nos. 7 to 38, they have chosen not to appear in the present proceeding. 2. Before the matter could have been taken up for consideration on merit, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, has fairly submitted that with respect to the lands, which are subject matter of controversy in the present proceeding, Title Suit No. 138 of 2008 has been filed by the private respondents, claiming their right and title over the same on the basis of certain documents in their possession. He submits that claim of right and title of petitioners vis-a-vis of private respondents are required to be thoroughly investigated by the Civil Court, who is in seisin of the matter in the aforesaid title suit. In that view of the matter, he seeks permission to withdraw this application with a liberty to contest the Title Suit No.138 of 2008 pending in the court of learned Sub-judge-Ist Saharsa. Learned counsel for the petitioners further highlights that by an order dated 30.6.1995 in the present proceeding order of status quo was directed to be maintained with respect to plot No. 8451 (New) appertaining to Khata No. 747 situate at village Gamharea in the district of Madhepura and, therefore, if the writ 3 petition is simply permitted to be withdrawn, then private respondents may try to disposses the petitioners. He submits that he may be granted liberty to file an appropriate petition in the aforesaid title suit for grant of injunction with respect to lands claimed by the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the State by placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit submits that, in fact, certain constructions have already been made by the private respondents over the lands in dispute, therefore, it may not be appropriate for this Court for extending the order of status quo granted by this Court by an order dated 30.6.1995 and that issue should be left entirely to the discretion of the Civil Court, for its decision in accordance with law. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the prayer made on behalf of petitioners, the present writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioners to contest the title suit pending in the Civil Court and with further liberty to seek an order of injunction, regarding lands in question in the aforesaid civil suit, which is permissible under law. The writ petition stands finally disposed of. Rahman/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)